U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2014-001 

Atlantic OCS 

Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume I: Chapters 1-8, Figures, Tables, and Keyword Index 

 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2014-001 

Atlantic OCS 

Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume I: Chapters 1-8, Figures, Tables, and Keyword Index 

Author 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Prepared under 

GSA Task Order No. M11PD00013 

by 

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 

8502 SW Kansas Avenue 

Stuart, Florida 34997 

Cover Photo (Ship) – courtesy WesternGeco 

Cover Photo (Whales) – courtesy National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service 

Published by 

New Orleans

February 2014 



v 

COVER SHEET

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for 

Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities 

in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas

Draft ( ) Final (x) 

Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( )

Area of Potential Impact: Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Counties of Delaware, 

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida

Agency Washington Contact Region Contacts

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

(GM 623E) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard

New Orleans, LA 70123-2394

Jill Lewandowski (HM 3107)

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

381 Elden Street

Herndon, VA 20170-4817

(703) 787-1703

Beth Nord

(504) 736-2995

Gary Goeke

(504) 736-3233

ABSTRACT

This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) covers the potential significant 

environmental effects of multiple geological and geophysical (G&G) activities on the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. It evaluates the types of G&G 

surveys and activities in the three program areas managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM): oil and gas; renewable energy; and marine minerals. 

This evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was directed by the 

U.S. Congress in the Conference Report (111-316) for Department of the Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies Act, 2010, appropriation. 

The proposed action is a major Federal action requiring an EIS. This document provides information 

required by NEPA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and it will be used in making 

decisions on the proposed action and on the permit applications for G&G activity now pending before 

BOEM. This Final Programmatic EIS includes the purpose and background of the proposed action, 

identification of the alternatives, the Preferred Alternative, a scenario for the level of anticipated activity 

in the program areas through 2020, a description of the factors and impacts caused by the proposed 

activities, a description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential environmental 

impacts under routine and nonroutine conditions for the proposed action and alternatives. The proposed 

action’s impact contributions to other cumulative impacts are also analyzed, and measures that act to 

mitigate potential effects are identified. 

Additional copies of this Final Programmatic EIS may be obtained from the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Public Information Office (GM 355A), 1201 Elmwood Park 

Boulevard, Room 250, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, or by telephone at 504-736-2519 or 

1-800-200-GULF. This Final Programmatic EIS may be accessed on the Internet at our dedicated project 

website at http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx or on our NEPA 

documents website at http://www.boem.gov/nepaprocess. 

Summary vii

SUMMARY

Introduction

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has prepared this Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (Programmatic EIS) to assess environmental impacts of authorizing 

geological and geophysical survey activities (G&G activities) in the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf area (Mid- and South Atlantic OCS) and adjacent State waters between 2012 and 2020. 

The analysis covers G&G activities conducted under BOEM’s oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine 

minerals programs. The Programmatic EIS also addresses impacts in adjacent State waters because 

environmental impacts of G&G activities in the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS under BOEM’s 

jurisdiction, such as seismic surveys, could impact the States.

The area covered by the Programmatic EIS (“Area of Interest” or “AOI”) extends from the mouth of 

the Delaware Bay to just south of Cape Canaveral, Florida, and from the shoreline (excluding estuaries) to 

648 kilometers (km) (403 miles [mi]) from shore. The total AOI is 854,779 km2 (330,032 mi2

), and water 

depths range from 0 to 5,629 meters (m) (0 to 18,468 feet [ft]). The AOI is the area in which the 

activities of the proposed action would take place and, therefore, the area of potential effect of the 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM has received nine permit requests for G&G activities in support of oil and gas 

exploration in the AOI, and industry has expressed interest in expanding G&G activities. Existing survey 

information on oil and gas resources from the 1970’s and 1980’s was collected with technology that is 

now outdated, and new surveys are needed to make informed decisions for energy production and 

environmental protection. Given the scope of the proposed surveys and their potential impacts, BOEM 

has determined a Programmatic EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is needed 

before permitting any new, large-scale G&G surveys. Furthermore, the Congress has requested

preparation of the Programmatic EIS in the Conference Report to the Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2010 (Report 111-316).

The Programmatic EIS does not authorize any particular G&G activities. Instead, the Programmatic 

EIS provides a higher level analysis of impacts from which site-specific NEPA evaluations will draw, or 

be “tiered” as described in the NEPA regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Sitespecific environmental evaluations will address details of proposed G&G activities, potential impacts, 

mitigation, and monitoring, and they will support site-specific intergovernmental consultations and 

decisions on authorizations and conditions to be applied under applicable laws.

The Alternative Actions

The Programmatic EIS evaluates three potential alternative actions by BOEM: to authorize G&G

activities with time-area closures and standard mitigation as described below (Alternative A, the 

Proposed Action); to authorize G&G activities with additional time-area closures, geographic separation 

of simultaneous seismic airgun surveys, and use of passive acoustic monitoring (Alternative B, the 

Preferred Alternative); and no action - the status quo (Alternative C). Alternatives A and B are 

identical with respect to the G&G activities that could be conducted and the expected activity levels 

during the 2012-2020 period. They differ only in that Alternative B would expand the time-area closure 

for North Atlantic right whales (NARW) provided in Alternative A; add a time-area closure offshore 

Brevard County, Florida, to protect nesting sea turtles; consider a 40-km (25-mi) separation between 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys; require passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) in seismic airgun surveys; 

and also require use of PAM or similar equipment in some HRG surveys. Alternative B has been 

identified as the Preferred Alternative. Alternative C is the No Action Alternative required by CEQ 

regulations implementing NEPA. Under this alternative, no G&G activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration would occur in the AOI, but G&G activities for renewable energy development and marine 

minerals use would continue on a site-specific basis. Several additional alternatives were identified 

during the scoping process, but they were eliminated from detailed analysis for the reasons identified in 

Chapter 2.5. Examples include limiting G&G activities to renewable energy and marine minerals; 

reprocessing existing G&G data for oil and gas; delaying the permitting process; consolidating and 
viii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

coordinating surveys; expanding G&G activities into the North Atlantic Planning Area; and requiring 

alternative, ‘quieter’ acoustic sources. 

Geological and Geophysical Activities 

Geological and geophysical activities addressed in the Programmatic EIS survey the AOI to acquire 

information that could be used to determine the resource potential of oil and gas, aid in siting renewable 

energy structures, and locate potential non-energy minerals such as sand and gravel. They can also assist 

in transporting energy and other resources safely, efficiently, and without harm to natural or cultural 

heritage. Geological and geophysical activities for oil and gas exploration generally include deep 

penetration seismic airgun surveys, electromagnetic surveys, deep stratigraphic and shallow test drilling, 

and various remote-sensing methods. Deep penetration seismic airgun surveys may occur most 

extensively in Federal waters of the AOI if authorized. These types of surveys are conducted by vessels 

towing an array of airguns that emit acoustic energy pulses into the seafloor over long durations and over 

large areas. They are controversial because of public concerns over potential impacts of the sound 

produced by these surveys to marine life. Therefore, the Programmatic EIS evaluates airgun surveys in 

detail.

Geological and geophysical activities for all three program areas (oil and gas, renewable energy, and 

marine minerals) include high-resolution geophysical surveys (HRG) to detect geohazards, archaeological 

resources, and certain types of benthic communities. Techniques also include bottom sampling and 

analysis (often referred to as geotechnical surveying) to assess seafloor suitability for supporting 

structures such as platforms, pipelines, cables, and wind turbines, or to evaluate the quantity and quality 

of sand for beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects. Geological and geophysical activities for 

renewable energy and marine minerals would consist mainly of HRG and bottom sampling in waters less 

than 40 m (131 ft) deep and 30 m (98 ft) deep, respectively. High-resolution geophysical surveys for oil 

and gas could occur anywhere in the AOI.

As provided for in NEPA, the Programmatic EIS evaluates the environmental impact of the proposed 

action and fundamental alternatives in respect to G&G activities and also identifies measures to mitigate 

or avoid impacts and monitoring to demonstrate the effectiveness of those measures. This evaluation and 

these measures and monitoring are intended to support compliance not just with NEPA but with all laws 

applicable to G&G activities in the AOI, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Coastal Zone 

Management Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

The Programmatic EIS addresses compliance with the ESA and MMPA in detail, and includes a

Biological Assessment (BA) prepared by BOEM for ESA Section 7 consultation with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Appendix A contains 

the BA, the concurrence letter from FWS following informal consultation, and the Biological Opinion 

(BO) from NMFS following formal consultation. However, many other consultations and authorizations 

will be needed at the site-specific level. For example, NMFS has determined a Programmatic Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation is not an appropriate mechanism and that potential impacts must be 

evaluated in subsequent, more specific consultations. Also, although BOEM has begun initial outreach to 

potentially affected federally recognized Indian Tribes, BOEM intends to consult formally on site-specific 

actions with any interested Tribes.

Modeled Marine Mammal Take Estimates

The Programmatic EIS provides incidental take estimates for species protected under the MMPA, 

whose count is premised on a range of effects from behavioral disturbance to mortality. As defined by 

the MMPA, “take” includes “harassment,” which includes annoyance and “which - (i) has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 

potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of 

behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering [Level B harassment].” Even as defined to include the sensitive threshold of Level B 

harassment, the numbers estimated for incidental take are higher than BOEM expects would actually 

occur. They do not, for example, take into account most of the mitigating measures incorporated into 

Alternatives A and B because the effect of those measures cannot be quantified with statistical confidence 
Summary ix

at this time. Further, the take estimates are based on acoustic and impact models that are by their very 

nature conservative and complex. Each of the inputs into the models is purposely developed to be 

conservative, and this conservativeness accumulates throughout the analysis. 

These conservative incidental take estimates do not alone reflect BOEM’s determination of the 

impact to marine mammals. The impact assessment approach used by BOEM is described in detail in 

Chapter 4. It considers the modeled take estimates, the best available information on marine mammal 

distribution, current science assessing the potential effects of G&G surveys on marine mammals, and an 

evaluation of how employed mitigation can reduce these effects. Although all mitigations cannot be

effective 100 percent of the time, these measures undoubtedly will contribute to species protection, and 

they will be refined as environmental impacts are evaluated in environmental review for site-specific 

authorizations, including ESA and MMPA consultation. This assessment is then compared against the 

significance criteria (described in Chapter 4.2.2.2.1) to identify an anticipated level of impact. Future 

site-specific actions proposed by operators will, as necessary, follow the MMPA procedures for issuance 

of an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA), which will again evaluate potential impacts. Detailed 

mitigation measures are in fact proposed for both Alternatives A and B, as summarized in Table S-1

below. 

Issues Selected for Detailed Analysis

The following specific issues were selected for detailed environmental impact analysis in the 

Programmatic EIS: 

• impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, birds, and other 

marine life;

• impacts of underwater noise on commercial and recreational fishing (fish catch);

• impacts of vessel traffic (risk of ship strikes) on marine mammals and sea turtles, 

birds, and threatened and endangered fish species;

• impacts of vessel traffic on fishing, shipping, and other marine uses;

• impacts of aircraft traffic and noise on marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and other 

marine uses;

• impacts of seafloor-disturbing activities on sensitive benthic communities including 

coral and hard/live bottom communities, chemosynthetic communities, and 

deepwater canyon benthos;

• impacts of seafloor-disturbing activities on EFH, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

(HAPC), and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); 

• impacts of seafloor-disturbing activities on archaeological resources including 

historic shipwrecks and prehistoric archaeological sites;

• impacts of vessel exclusion zones on commercial and recreational fishing, shipping, 

recreational resources, and other marine uses;

• impacts of marine trash and debris on benthic communities, marine mammals, sea 

turtles, birds, endangered or threatened fish species, and recreational resources; and

• impacts of accidental spills on benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, 

birds, fishes and EFH, archaeological resources, recreational resources, MPAs, other 

marine uses, and human resources and land use. 

Factors Causing Environmental Impact

In consideration of future G&G activities considered under this Programmatic EIS for the three 

program areas (oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals), the following concerns were

identified for targeted assessment: active acoustic sound sources (airguns and electromechanical 

sources); vessel and equipment noise; vessel traffic; aircraft traffic and noise; vessel exclusion zones; 

trash and debris; seafloor disturbance; drilling discharges; onshore support activities; and accidental fuel 

spills. The Programmatic EIS refers to these as impact-producing factors or IPFs.
x Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Levels of Impact

The Programmatic EIS evaluates and assigns levels of environmental impact caused by IPFs as 

follows, with categories tailored as needed to fit characteristics of differing IPFs: 

• Negligible: Little or no measurable/detectable impact. 

• Minor: Impacts are detectable, short-term, extensive or localized, but less than 

severe. 

• Moderate: Impacts are detectable, short-term, extensive, and severe; or impacts are 

detectable, short-term or long-lasting, localized, and severe; or impacts are 

detectable, long-lasting, extensive or localized, but less than severe.

• Major: Impacts are detectable, long-lasting, extensive, and severe.

Environmental Impacts of Alternative A 

Impacts on Marine Mammals

Thirty-nine species of marine mammals occur or may occur within the AOI, including 34 cetacean 

species, 1 sirenian (the Florida subspecies of the West Indian manatee), and 4 pinnipeds (gray seal, harbor 

seal, hooded seal, and harp seal). The manatee and the four seal species probably do not occur in the AOI 

currently; therefore, only 34 marine mammal species are potentially impacted. Six of the potentially 

impacted marine mammal species are endangered species, including five baleen whales (NARW, blue 

whale, fin whale, sei whale, and humpback whale) and one toothed whale (sperm whale). The IPFs 

affecting marine mammals are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, 

aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources 

Alternative A includes extensive seismic airgun surveys, as well as HRG surveys. Airguns produce 

acoustic pulses that are within the hearing range of all marine mammals. Most HRG surveys use only 

electromechanical sources, such as side-scan sonars; boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and 

multibeam depth sounders, some of which have frequencies beyond the functional hearing range of 

marine mammals. However, some HRG surveys may use small airguns. Based on the scope of the 

proposed action, seismic airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys could affect individuals from all 

34 potentially impacted marine mammal species reported from the AOI.

Incidental take levels of marine mammals through acoustical disturbance was estimated for 

Alternative A using the Acoustic Integration Model©

. The model used both the current NMFS-established 

criteria and the Southall et al. (2007) criteria to estimate take. The difference between the two sets of 

criteria for harassment is that NMFS currently uses “precautionary” thresholds that would indicate when 

the potential for Level A or Level B harassment cannot be dismissed. In other words, the sound level 

may or may not actually cause harassment, but it might. The Southall et al. (2007) criteria estimate 

threshold levels where harassment may actually occur, and hence these take estimates are lower. 

Chapter 4 and Appendices D and E provide detailed explanations of the models and results.

The “Modeled Marine Mammal Take Estimates” section above summarizes the conservative nature 

of these modeled estimates. Again, the models do not take into account all of the extensive mitigation

measures summarized in Table S-1 or other caveats discussed below, and actual take through acoustic 

disturbance is expected to be less than modeled estimates. For example, the Level A incidental takes 

predicted do not take into account the mitigation measures included in the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol that establishes a 180-decibel (dB) acoustic exclusion zone around airgun arrays. The acoustic 

exclusion zone must be clear of any marine mammals and sea turtles for at least 60 minutes before an 

airgun survey can start. The airgun array is then slowly ramped-up, rather than turned on immediately at 

full power, so that animals have an opportunity to move away before airgun levels reach potentially 

disturbing levels. Further, Protected Species Observers (PSOs) continuously monitor the 180-dB 

exclusion zone for marine mammals and call for the immediate shut down of the airgun array if marine 

mammals are detected within or approaching this exclusion zone. However, it should be noted that the 
Summary xi

effects of mitigation measures, and other caveats described below, cannot be quantified with precision, 

and mitigation measures may not be fully implemented. For example, visual and PAM are not 

100 percent effective due to factors such as physical conditions (e.g., inclement weather), presence of 

animals at the surface, difficulty in species identification, lack of vocalizing animals, and limitations in 

equipment used for monitoring. Further, larger acoustic exclusion zones are more difficult to monitor 

than smaller zones.

For seismic airgun surveys, the total annual Level A and Level B incidental takes were estimated for 

2012-2020 using the NMFS and Southall et al. criteria. The modeling predicts Level A harassment of all 

marine mammal species in the AOI, except the West Indian manatee and the three modeled seal species

(gray, harbor, and hooded seals). Using NMFS’s 180-dB criterion, the five species with the highest 

numbers of annual Level A takes are estimated to be as follows: 

• bottlenose dolphin (up to 11,748 individuals/year);

• short-beaked common dolphin (up to 6,147 individuals/year);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (up to 5,848 individuals/year);

• short-finned pilot whale (up to 4,631 individuals/year); and

• striped dolphin (up to 3,993 individuals/year).

Using the Southall et al. (2007) criteria, estimated Level A takes are much lower than predicted by 

NMFS, with the following top five species:

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (up to 1,496 individuals/year);

• striped dolphin (up to 1,020 individuals/year);

• Risso’s dolphin (up to 731 individuals/year);

• pantropical spotted dolphin (up to 263 individuals/year); and

• short-beaked common dolphin (up to 225 individuals/year). 

The modeling also predicts Level B harassment of all marine mammal species except the West Indian 

manatee and the three modeled seals species (gray, harbor, and hooded seals). Using NMFS’s 160-dB

criterion, the five species with the highest annual Level B take estimates are as follows: 

• bottlenose dolphin (up to 1,151,442 individuals/year);

• short-beaked common dolphin (up to 602,424 individuals/year);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (up to 573,121 individuals/year)

• short-finned pilot whale (up to 453,897 individuals/year); and

• striped dolphin (up to 391,376 individuals/year). 

Six potentially impacted marine mammal species in the AOI are endangered species: NARW; blue 

whale; fin whale; sei whale; humpback whale; and sperm whale. The modeling predicts Level A and 

Level B incidental takes of all these species. The estimated take is highest for the humpback whale, with 

estimated Level A takes of up to 12 individuals/year using NMFS’s 180-dB criterion (up to 

6 individuals/year following Southall et al. [2007]) and Level B takes up to 1,131 individuals/year using 

NMFS’s 160-dB criterion. The modeling predicts Level A incidental takes of 0-2 NARW 

individuals/year using NMFS’s 180-dB criterion and less than one individual using the Southall et al. 

(2007) criterion. Level B incidental takes of the NARW are estimated by the models to range from 

0 to 224 individuals/year. The proposed action includes a time-area closure for NARWs that has been 

factored into the incidental take calculations. The closure reduces estimated Level A and Level B 

incidental takes of NARWs by about 67 percent (as compared with no time-area closures). Other 

mitigation measures not considered in the take models are also expected to reduce actual take.

These modeled take estimates should be regarded as conservative and higher than the probable actual 

take. The acoustic and impact modeling conducted to support the Programmatic EIS is by its very nature 

complex and requires numerous assumptions to predict results in scenarios where
xii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

• the period modeled is in the future and spans 5 years, during which the knowledge of 

the source locations and movement, animal locations and movement, 

oceanographic/acoustic conditions, equipment descriptions and specification, and 

even the time of the year for each survey are not precisely known;

• the details of marine mammal abundances, distributions, and behavior patterns are 

not precisely known and are subject to change as animal populations vary from year 

to year and location to location; and

• the development of new or re-designed survey equipment, survey techniques, survey 

geometries, or even signal processing approaches could change.

Despite uncertainty and variability in future actions, the use of models require numerous specific 

details to be identified and used during their calculations. Each of the inputs into the models is therefore 

purposely developed to be conservative (overly predictive), and this conservativeness accumulates 

throughout the analysis. For example, representative sound sources are modeled at highest sound levels 

and always at maximum power and operation; sound levels received by an animal are calculated at 

highest levels; marine mammal density values used likely exceed actual densities; and models do not 

include the effect of all mitigations in reducing take estimates. Additional assumptions that add to the 

conservativeness of the models are noted below. Chapter 1 and Appendices D and E provide greater 

detail on the development and results of these models.

• Acoustic Source Specifications: There is a large variation in the size, configuration, 

and source level of the airgun arrays potentially employed during surveys. The 

modeling selected one source as representative of those used that was more powerful 

than about 95 percent of the sources listed in the various survey types. Additionally, 

it was assumed that the modeled array was always at maximum power and that all 

airguns were fully operational for fully completed survey scenarios. Similarly, for 

the mineral resources survey, the most conservative parameters were assumed for 

source level, signal repetition rate, pulse length, and other factors. These 

assumptions will not always be met in the field.

• Acoustic Source Modeling: For simplicity, the acoustic modeling replaces the 

actual predicted distributed airgun array sound field with a sound field produced by a 

single hypothetical single large airgun and a beam pattern. This is fairly accurate in 

the far-field, which is typically 100-300 m (328-984 ft) from the array center and 

outward, but in the closer near-field this can greatly overestimate the apparent source 

level and the subsequent impacts calculated. This conservative near-field 

approximation could be corrected in the model; however, the approximation is highly 

dependent on the actual source parameters. It would be difficult to justify making 

such a correction in the Programmatic EIS, which would greatly enlarge the 

modeling effort while not necessarily improving accuracy of the estimates. 

• Acoustic Propagation Modeling: Typically, the acoustic parameters used in 

acoustic modeling (including sound velocity profile, bottom sediment 

types/distributions/thicknesses/coefficients, and surface wind and wave values) are 

averaged seasonal values over reasonably sampled areas and time periods. These 

averaging processes remove most local variability while capturing the general effect 

of the sound speed on acoustic propagation. This generally tends to underestimate 

the transmission loss and therefore overestimate the received levels at all ranges to 

some degree. Actual in situ propagation, therefore, typically displays much more 

fading and disruption of the signal, especially for signals shorter than 1 second (i.e., 

airguns). 

• Acoustic Modeling of the Multi-Path: When a signal propagates through the 

ocean, it typically follows many pathways between the source and a receiver (e.g., an 

animal). For example, one path may be directly between the source and receiver, 

while others may reflect off of the ocean surface or bottom before arriving at the 

receiver. For most of the models used in acoustic propagation analyses, the model 

assumes that the signals continue until all of the significant paths have arrived at the 
Summary xiii

receiver. The energy from these different pathways is then summed to derive a final 

received value. This is a conservative approach for short signals, like airgun pulses, 

and this spreading of a signal (and its energy) generally increases as range increases. 

This is not a simple or easy correction to make since it can also be highly dependent 

on the receiver’s position in range and depth. Therefore, the conservative assumption 

is used. Additionally, real world localized effects, such as bubble plumes from 

breaking waves and the scattering of sound from plants and air present near the 

ocean’s surface, also greatly reduce received levels for animals within 3-6 m 

(10-20 ft) of the ocean’s surface.

• Marine Mammal Density Values: Marine mammal density values used in acoustic 

modeling are typically very conservative. As a simple check of their conservatism, a 

calculation consisting of multiplying each density value by the area that it covers and 

then summing these values results in total population values that greatly exceed those 

identified in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment reports.

• Marine Mammal Congregations: Marine mammals, especially dolphins, often 

occur in pods or groups of animals. When this occurs, the actual density near that 

pod can be greater than those used in these calculations, but the corresponding 

density for much of the surrounding areas has been decreased. Statistically, this 

averages out for multiple model runs that do not account for this. However, when 

this occurs during actual operations, sources may be turned off, especially since large 

pods of dolphins, which often can consist of hundreds of animals, are much easier to 

observe and mitigate for.

Overall impacts from airgun surveys on marine mammals are expected to be moderate. 

Impacts of Non-Airgun HRG Surveys

Non-Airgun HRG surveys would use only electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; 

boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders. Boomer and sparker 

pulses are expected to be within the hearing range of all marine mammals. However, the operating 

frequency of the representative multibeam system selected for the Programmatic EIS is above the hearing 

range of all cetaceans. For the representative side-scan sonar and chirp subbottom profiler systems, some 

frequencies are within the hearing range of cetaceans, but others are not. Frequencies emitted by 

individual equipment may differ from these representative systems selected for analysis.

Based on the scope of the HRG survey scenarios, any of the 34 potentially impacted marine mammal

species within the AOI could be affected. In addition, marine mammals inhabiting primarily shelf-edge 

or deepwater habitats (e.g., sperm whales, spinner dolphins, etc.) are unlikely to be exposed to noise from 

most HRG surveys because these surveys would typically be in relatively nearshore waters. Highresolution geophysical surveys for renewable energy projects are expected to occur in waters less than 

40 m (131 ft) deep and marine minerals surveys are expected to occur in waters less than 30 m (98 ft) 

deep. However, HRG surveys for oil and gas are expected to occur in all water depths.

For non-airgun HRG surveys, modeling of incidental take predicts low numbers (a few individuals 

per survey year) of Level A harassment for all marine mammal species (except manatees and the three 

seal species modeled) in the AOI. The modeling also predicts Level B harassment (except manatees and

the three seal species modeled), with numbers ranging up to several hundred individuals per year (e.g., 

92-632 individuals/year for bottlenose dolphin, the species with the highest numbers). All six of the 

potentially impacted endangered marine mammal species are predicted to have essentially zero Level A 

incidental takes using both NMFS’s 180-dB criterion and the Southall et al. (2007) criteria. The highest 

estimated Level B incidental takes for these endangered species are estimated for the sperm whale

(0-12 individuals/year). All of the endangered mysticete whales have estimated Level B incidental takes 

of less than one individual/year, with the highest estimate being for NARW (0.19-0.87 individuals/year). 

These modeled estimates for HRG surveys overstate take levels for the same reasons that they overstate 

airgun takes. 

In conclusion, it is expected that there would be little or no Level A harassment resulting from 

non-airgun HRG surveys. Depending on the operating frequencies and source levels of the 
xiv Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

electromechanical sources used for a particular survey, the underwater noise may be above the hearing 

range of marine mammals or cause impacts only at very close range. The most likely and extensive 

effects of HRG surveys on marine mammals would be behavioral responses (Level B harassment). 

Because most or all Level A harassment would likely be avoided and because of the low numbers of 

Level B harassments predicted, overall impacts on marine mammals from non-airgun HRG surveys are 

expected to be minor. 

Other Impacts on Marine Mammals 

Vessel noise has been observed to elicit a variety of behavioral responses in marine mammals and 

may contribute to auditory masking. These behavioral responses may include evasive maneuvers such as 

diving or changes in swimming direction or speed. Alternative A includes a time-area closure for G&G

surveys deploying airguns in NARW critical habitat in the periods when vessel speed restrictions are in 

force under the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (from November 15 through April 15) and in the 

Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs) from November 1 through 

April 30. Authorizations for other (non-airgun) HRG surveys in these areas may include additional 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. These measures would 

be expected to reduce vessel-related noise impacts to NARWs during their seasonal migration and calving 

and nursing periods. The time-area closure would also reduce impacts on other marine mammals during 

those time periods. Based on the expected relatively low volume of vessel traffic associated with project 

activities within the AOI and the presumption that individuals or groups of marine mammals within the 

AOI will be familiar with various common vessel-related noises, particularly within frequented shipping 

lanes, the impacts of vessel noise on marine mammals within the AOI are expected to be negligible to 

minor. 

Other sound sources associated with Alternative A include drilling-related equipment noise during the 

completion of up to three deep stratigraphic test wells and up to five shallow test wells during the time 

period covered by the Programmatic EIS. These sounds may elicit behavioral responses such as changes 

in swimming direction or speed. However, considering the small number of drilling operations, the 

continuous nature of sounds produced during these activities, and the mitigation measures in place for 

Alternative A, it is expected that the noise impacts on marine mammals would be minor. 

Marine mammals are vulnerable to vessel strikes. However, all authorizations for shipboard surveys 

would include guidance for vessel strike avoidance. It is unlikely that survey vessels would strike marine 

mammals because they would travel slowly during surveys (typically between 4.5-6 knots [kn]). In 

addition, during surveys, waters surrounding survey vessels would be visually monitored by PSOs for 

marine mammals and turtles. Vessel movements would be subject to BOEM guidance for vessel strike 

avoidance, and vessel operators would be required to reduce speed in certain areas to comply with the 

Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule. Vessel traffic impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Alternative A includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the possibility of helicopter traffic in 

support of drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Low-flying aircraft can disturb marine 

mammals with noise and visual appearance. However, the exposure of individual marine mammals to 

aircraft-related noise would be expected to be brief in duration. Considering the relatively low level of 

aircraft activity included in the proposed action, along with the short duration of potential exposure to 

noise and visual disturbance, potential impacts from this activity are expected to be negligible to minor. 

Impacts to marine mammals from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through 

vessel operators’ required compliance with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) regulations. In addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include the 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) guidance for marine debris awareness. 

Therefore, impacts are expected to be negligible. 

An accidental fuel spill could affect marine mammals through various pathways: direct contact; 

inhalation of volatile components; ingestion (directly or indirectly through the consumption of fouled 

prey species); and, for mysticetes, impairment of feeding by fouling of baleen. Cetacean skin is highly 

impermeable and is not significantly irritated by brief exposure to diesel fuel; hence, limited direct contact 

is not likely to produce a significant impact. A small fuel spill would not be likely to result in the death or 

life-threatening injury of individual marine mammals or the long-term displacement of these animals

from preferred feeding or breeding habitats or migratory routes. It is expected that spilled fuel oil or 
Summary xv

diesel fuel would rapidly disperse on the sea surface to a very light sheen and would weather rapidly. The 

impacts would be negligible to minor. 

Impacts on Sea Turtles

Five sea turtle species occur in the AOI: loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and 

leatherback turtles. The hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback turtles are listed under the ESA as 

endangered. The green turtle is listed as threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is 

endangered. The Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead turtle is classified as threatened. 

Loggerhead, leatherback, and green turtles are more commonly found within the AOI during nesting 

season and in certain life stages. Kemp’s ridley and particularly hawksbill turtles are less common within 

the AOI. Green, leatherback, and loggerhead turtles nest on coastal beaches within the AOI, with most 

nests in southeast Florida. However, loggerhead turtles also nest along the southeast coast as far north as 

Virginia. The relevant IPFs for sea turtles are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, 

vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources 

Alternative A includes extensive seismic airgun surveys, as well as HRG surveys, and the 

low-frequency pulses of airguns that are believed to be within the hearing range of sea turtles. Highresolution geophysical surveys typically use only electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; 

boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders. The survey protocol for 

HRG sound sources operating at or below 200 kilohertz (kHz) (HRG Survey Protocol) includes 

establishing a 200-m (656-ft) radius acoustic exclusion zone around the sound source, and visual 

monitoring by trained PSOs. The HRG Survey Protocol also restricts HRG surveys within the NARW

critical habitat from November 15 to April 15 for surveys using equipment that operates at frequencies at 

and below 30 kHz. Based on the source levels of most boomer and sparker equipment and 

implementation of the HRG Survey Protocol, impacts on sea turtles from HRG surveys using boomer or 

sparker subbottom profilers are expected to range from negligible to minor, based on the distance of the 

individual sea turtle from the sound pulse.

Seismic airgun surveys could affect all sea turtle species within the AOI, potentially including 

hawksbill turtles within the southernmost part of the AOI. Subadult and adult turtles may be more likely 

to be affected by seismic airgun noise than post-hatchling turtles due to the time that the former remain 

submerged and at depth. Post-hatchling turtles generally reside at or near the sea surface and may be less 

likely to be harmed by the sound field produced by an airgun array. Seismic airgun surveys in nearshore 

waters would affect a greater number of individual turtles, particularly species other than leatherbacks. 

Deepwater surveys are likely to affect fewer individual turtles but are more likely to affect leatherback 

turtles, particularly within areas of upwelling where individuals may be found in feeding aggregations. 

Surveys conducted during summer sea turtle nesting periods may affect greater numbers of adult turtles, 

particularly loggerhead, green, and leatherback turtles, than surveys conducted during non-nesting 

periods.

Mitigation measures included in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol include ramp-up of airgun 

arrays, visual monitoring of an acoustic exclusion zone by PSOs, and startup and shutdown requirements. 

These measures are expected to minimize the potential for injury to sea turtles by ensuring that they are 

not present within an acoustic exclusion zone around the airgun array. The most likely impacts would be 

short-term behavioral responses; no deaths or life-threatening injuries would be expected. In general, 

impacts of seismic airgun surveys on sea turtles are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

However, seismic airgun surveys offshore heavily used nesting beaches during the nesting season 

could temporarily displace breeding and nesting adult turtles and potentially disrupt time-critical 

activities. Beaches of southeast Florida have been identified as the most important nesting area for 

loggerhead turtles in the Western Hemisphere. The northern segment of the Archie Carr National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) borders the AOI, and it has been estimated that 25 percent of all loggerhead 

nesting in the U.S. occurs there. During the 2010 nesting season, there were over 31,000 loggerhead nests 

in Brevard County, Florida, which is where the Archie Carr NWR is located. It is likely that large 

numbers of sea turtles would be present in nearshore waters of Brevard County during the nesting season 

from May 1 to October 31. Many adult females linger near the nesting beaches before and between 
xvi Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

nesting events, resting under rocky ledges and outcrops in inner shelf waters for weeks. Depending on 

the duration and intensity of G&G surveys in this area, breeding adults, nesting adult females, and 

hatchlings could be exposed to airgun seismic pulses that disrupt nesting behavior. For surveys offshore 

Brevard County during the nesting season, seismic airgun survey impacts on sea turtles are expected to 

range from minor to moderate. 

Other Impacts on Sea Turtles 

Survey vessel activities would generate vessel and equipment noise that could disturb sea turtles or 

contribute to auditory masking. The most likely effects would include behavioral changes such as diving 

or changes in swimming direction or speed. This evasive behavior is not expected to adversely affect 

these individuals or the population, and so the impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Survey vessels could strike and injure or kill sea turtles. However, all authorizations for shipboard 

surveys would include guidance for vessel strike avoidance. It is unlikely that survey vessels would strike 

sea turtles because the vessels would travel slowly. In addition, during surveys, waters surrounding 

survey vessels would be visually monitored by PSOs for sea turtles and marine mammals. Vessel 

movements would be subject to guidance for vessel strike avoidance, and vessel operators would be 

required to reduce speed in certain areas to comply with the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule. 

Vessel traffic impacts on sea turtles are expected to be negligible. 

Alternative A includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the possibility of helicopter traffic in 

support of the drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Low-flying aircraft can disturb sea 

turtles through noise and visual disturbance, as for marine mammals. However, the exposure of 

individual sea turtles to aircraft-related noise would be expected to be brief in duration. Considering the 

relatively low level of aircraft activity included in the proposed action, along with the short duration of 

potential exposure noise and visual disturbance, potential impacts on sea turtles from this activity are 

expected to be negligible. 

Impacts to sea turtles from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, all authorizations for 

shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, impacts are 

expected to be negligible. 

An accidental fuel spill could affect sea turtles through various pathways including direct contact, 

inhalation of the fuel and its volatile components, and ingestion (directly or indirectly through the 

consumption of fouled prey species). Several aspects of sea turtle biology and behavior place them at 

risk, including lack of avoidance behavior, indiscriminate feeding in convergence zones, and inhalation of 

large volumes of air before dives. Studies have shown that direct exposure of sensitive tissues (e.g., eyes 

or other mucous membranes) and soft tissues to diesel fuel or volatile hydrocarbons may produce 

irritation and inflammation. Diesel fuel can adhere to turtle skin or shells. Turtles surfacing within or 

near a diesel release may inhale petroleum vapors, causing respiratory stress. Ingested diesel fuel, 

particularly the lighter fractions, can be acutely toxic to sea turtles. However, a small fuel spill would not 

be likely to result in the death or life-threatening injury of individual turtles or hatchlings, or the 

long-term displacement of adult turtles from preferred feeding, breeding, or nesting habitats or migratory 

routes. It is unlikely that a small diesel fuel spill in the ocean would reach turtle nests, which are usually 

positioned above the high tide line. Therefore, the potential impacts to sea turtles from an accidental fuel 

spill are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds 

The Atlantic Coast supports a diverse avifauna and includes a variety of coastal habitats that are

important to the ecology of coastal and marine bird species. The Programmatic EIS focuses on seabirds, 

waterfowl, and shorebirds. In addition, three threatened and endangered species of marine and coastal 

birds occur within the AOI (the piping plover, roseate tern, and Bermuda petrel) and one candidate 

species occurs (the red knot). The relevant IPFs for marine and coastal birds are active acoustic sound 

sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and 

accidental fuel spills.

Only birds that plunge dive would be at risk of exposure to active acoustic sound sources. 

Investigations into the effects of airguns on seabirds are extremely limited, but no mortality, injury, or 
Summary xvii

effects on distribution or abundance have been observed. Underwater noise impacts on birds are expected 

to be negligible to minor for airguns and negligible for noise from electromechanical sources.

Birds could be briefly disturbed by vessel traffic, vessel and equipment noise, and aircraft traffic and 

noise. However, it is not expected that vessels or aircraft would be operating near important nesting or 

roosting areas; impacts would be negligible to minor. 

Impacts of trash and debris to marine and coastal birds are expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, all authorizations for 

shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, impacts on 

marine and coastal birds from trash and debris are expected to be negligible. 

If the accidental fuel spill occurred in offshore waters, there is the potential for some oceanic and 

pelagic seabirds to be directly and indirectly affected by spilled diesel fuel. Direct impacts would include 

oiling of plumage and ingestion from preening. Indirect impacts could include oiling of foraging habitats 

and movement of birds away from oiled areas. Impacts are expected to be negligible to minor for most 

bird species, but potentially negligible to moderate for the ESA-listed and candidate species proposed for 

listing, such as piping plover, roseate tern, Bermuda petrel, and red knot, depending on the timing and 

location of the spill. 

Impacts on Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

The AOI encompasses demersal and pelagic habitats ranging from the shoreline to the open ocean 

that support approximately 600 fish species. The Programmatic EIS focuses on demersal fishes

(including hard bottom and soft bottom fishes) and pelagic fishes (including coastal pelagic, epipelagic, 

and mesopelagic fishes). Within the demersal classes, assemblages are characterized by cross-shelf 

distribution or depth-related patterns. Ichthyoplankton and EFH are also included in the analysis. The

relevant IPFs for fish resources and EFH are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, 

seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Potential impacts of active acoustic sound sources (e.g., airguns) on fishes may include behavioral 

responses, masking of biologically important sounds, temporary hearing loss, and physiological effects. 

Under Alternative A, fishes near an airgun array could be exposed to sound levels resulting in temporary 

hearing loss. Affected species would be expected to vacate the survey area, experience short-term 

hearing loss, experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or be completely unaffected. Mortality 

is very unlikely; however, the potential to disrupt spawning aggregations or schools of fishes important as 

prey for other fishes and marine mammals, when coupled with the mobile nature of the surveys, the 

short-term of surveying small seafloor areas relative to the overall area, and the potential for fishes to 

temporarily move away from noise that is affecting them, suggest that the impacts from active acoustic

sound sources to fisheries resources and EFH would be minor to moderate. Based on results from 

several studies, high-frequency sounds emitted by active electromechanical acoustic operations in the 

AOI would likely affect the behavior of fishes capable of hearing in the high-frequency range 

(25-135 kHz) in a detectable way, such as herrings, menhaden, and anchovies. Changes in behavior, 

particularly in pre-spawning fish assembling to move into spawning rivers, could affect reproductive 

potential or feeding activity. In addition, temporary displacement of prey species could affect feeding 

routines of predatory fishes and marine mammals. However, because electromechanical sources would 

be mostly used from moving vessels and individual surveys would be temporary and spatially limited, the 

impacts on these fishes and populations are expected to be minor. 

All vessels produce underwater noise, and it is likely that fishes in the AOI have habituated to this 

noise. Sound sources from vessels are below levels that can cause temporary hearing loss or injury, but 

masking and short-term behavior is possible. Impacts on fish behavior are expected to be short-term and 

localized to areas of survey vessel activity; the effects would be minor. 

Some G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test 

wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could disturb the seafloor and result in 

localized impacts on demersal fishes and EFH. In addition, discharges from drilling deep stratigraphic 

and shallow test wells could cause localized impacts. The area affected would be a negligible percentage 

of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Because BOEM would require prior approval of G&G activities 

involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 
xviii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

structures, impacts on sensitive benthic habitats that serve as EFH are expected to be avoided. Impacts of 

seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges are expected to be negligible. 

A small fuel spill at the sea surface could affect fish resources and EFH. Numerous federally 

managed species have pelagic eggs and larvae that would be at risk if they encountered a diesel spill. The 

EFH most likely to be affected would be pelagic Sargassum. Drifting in windrows or mats, Sargassum

supports numerous fishes and invertebrates including the young of several federally managed species 

such as greater amberjack, almaco jack, gray triggerfish, blue runner, dolphin, and wahoo. However, 

because the exposure of spilled diesel fuel on early life stages and Sargassum is expected to last for a day 

or less and have limited spatial extent, the impacts of a small accidental fuel spill would be minor. 

Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Fish Species

The AOI includes two endangered marine fish species: the smalltooth sawfish occurring mainly in 

nearshore Florida waters and the Atlantic sturgeon found in shelf waters, including areas offshore of 

Virginia and North Carolina, during fall and winter months. The shortnose sturgeon is an endangered 

anadromous species that inhabits rivers along the Atlantic Coast but rarely ventures into coastal marine 

waters. NMFS has been petitioned recently to consider listing the scalloped hammerhead shark as 

threatened or endangered. Six Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) were identified for scalloped 

hammerhead worldwide. One of these, the central and southwest Atlantic DPS, abuts (but does not 

overlap) the southern boundary of the AOI off Florida (latitude 28° N). The relevant IPFs for threatened 

or endangered fish species are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, 

trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Due to their rare occurrence in the AOI, the smalltooth sawfish and shortnose sturgeon are unlikely to 

be exposed to active acoustic sound sources, including airguns; impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Atlantic sturgeon are more likely to be exposed to these sound sources due to their distribution. Impacts 

could include behavioral responses, masking of biologically important sounds, temporary hearing loss, 

and physiological effects. No mortality or injury is expected because there has been no observation of 

direct physical injury or death to fishes from airguns.

Smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon are all demersal species that are 

unlikely to be affected by vessel and equipment noise (negligible impact). Impacts of vessel traffic per se 

on all three species are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of trash and debris releases on the water column and benthic environment are expected to be 

avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, 

all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. 

Impacts from trash and debris on threatened or endangered fishes are expected to be negligible. 

Some G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test 

wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could disturb the seafloor and result in 

localized impacts on demersal fishes, which could include the three demersal species (smalltooth sawfish, 

shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon). Discharges from drilling deep stratigraphic and shallow test 

wells could smother nearby benthic communities; however, the total area of seafloor disturbance would 

be a negligible percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Because BOEM’s approval process requires

mitigation of G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of 

bottom-founded equipment or structures, impacts on listed demersal fishes and their habitat are expected 

to be avoided. Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges are expected to be negligible for 

all of the listed fish species.

In the event of an accidental fuel spill, the three demersal listed species (smalltooth sawfish, shortnose 

sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon) are unlikely to be affected because a small fuel spill probably would not

reach the seafloor or contaminate bottom sediments. Because of their life histories, none of the threatened 

or endangered fish species would have sensitive eggs or larvae in the water column of the AOI where they 

would be exposed to accidentally spilled diesel fuel. Impacts are expected to be negligible for all three of 

these species.

Impacts on Commercial Fisheries

The AOI supports regionally and nationally important commercial fisheries. In 2012, total 

commercial landings within the AOI were 294,094 metric tons valued at approximately $432.2 million. 
Summary xix

Commercial fisheries support not only numerous directly related jobs (fishing crews) but also many 

indirectly related industries such as seafood distributors, restaurants, and suppliers of commercial fishing

gear. Several ports within the AOI have among the highest commercial fishing revenues in the U.S. 

Fisheries within the AOI support 108 fishing communities located along the coast from Delaware to 

Florida. The relevant IPFs for commercial fisheries are active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills.

Sounds from active acoustic sound sources such as airguns may result in behavioral changes in some 

fishes. Fish exposed to seismic airgun sound may exhibit an initial startle response, followed by tolerance

of the sound source and, after a period of time, resumption of normal behavior. Temporary avoidance 

behavior could result in a short-term, localized reduction in fish catch (minor impact). 

Survey vessel traffic has the potential to temporarily interrupt commercial fishing operations, 

including setting of fishing gear. During seismic airgun surveys, a vessel exclusion zone is maintained 

around the survey vessels and their towed airgun arrays. Vessel exclusion zones would be temporary, 

with the duration and area dependent on the type of activity. Prior to conducting a seismic airgun survey, 

operators would submit information to the local USCG office and the local harbormaster for issuance of a 

Local Notice to Mariners specifying the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance 

requirements. Impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones would be minor. 

Seafloor disturbance could damage bottom-founded fishing gear within the AOI. However, most 

passive gears such as traps, pots, and bottom longlines are well marked by surface buoys. The total area 

of seafloor disturbance would be a negligible percentage of the AOI, but damage could occur within a 

productive fishing area. Impacts under Alternative A are expected to range from negligible to minor

depending on the location. 

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on commercial fisheries would depend on the location of the 

spill, in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of 

weathering and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt commercial fishing

operations. However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill 

response involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts to commercial fisheries’ 

activities from a small diesel fuel spill are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

Impacts on Recreational Fisheries

Recreational fishing is an important social and economic activity in the AOI. In 2011, saltwater 

recreational anglers in the seven states adjacent to the AOI made 86 million fishing trips, and the

recreational fisheries in these states are among the most valuable in the U.S. The relevant IPFs for 

recreational fisheries are active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, vessel exclusion zones, and 

accidental fuel spills.

Active acoustic sound sources such as airguns may temporarily drive fish away and reduce local 

catch; however, the impacts on recreational fisheries are expected to be negligible to minor. 

During seismic airgun surveys, a vessel exclusion zone would be maintained around survey vessels

and their towed airgun arrays. The vessel exclusion zones would be temporary, with the duration and 

area dependent on the type of activity. Prior to conducting a seismic airgun survey, operators would 

submit information to the local USCG office and the local harbormaster for issuance of a Local Notice to 

Mariners specifying the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements. Any 

impacts would be localized and short-term and are expected to be negligible to minor. 

Other survey vessel traffic may also temporarily interrupt recreational fishing activities. For example, 

a fishing vessel might have to change course, stop setting gear, or temporarily leave a preferred fishing 

location. Impacts of this traffic are expected to be negligible. 

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational fishing would depend on the location of the 

spill, in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of 

weathering and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt recreational fishing 

activities. However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill 

response involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts to recreational fisheries’ 

activities from a small diesel fuel spill are expected to range from negligible to minor. 
xx Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Impacts on Recreational Resources 

Coastal and marine habitats within and adjacent to the AOI make the Mid- and South Atlantic Coasts 

popular destinations for visitors from local communities and around the globe. Most recreational 

activities in the region occur either along the coast or in nearshore State waters. The relevant IPFs for 

recreational resources are vessel exclusion zones, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.

During seismic airgun surveys, a vessel exclusion zone is maintained around the survey vessels and 

their towed airgun arrays. The vessel exclusion zones would be temporary, with the duration and areal 

extent dependent on the type of activity. Prior to conducting a seismic airgun survey, operators would 

submit information to the local USCG office and the local harbormaster for issuance of a Local Notice to 

Mariners specifying the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements. Any 

impacts would be of short duration, and potential impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of trash and debris on recreational resources (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) are expected 

to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In 

addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris 

awareness. Impacts from trash and debris on recreational resources are expected to be negligible to 

minor. 

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational resources would depend on the location of the 

spill, in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of 

weathering and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt recreational use of some 

areas. However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill 

response involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts to recreational uses from a small 

diesel fuel spill are expected to be negligible to minor. 

Impacts on Benthic Communities

The benthic environment of the AOI includes parts of two broad eco-regions: (1) the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight (MAB), which extends from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; and 

(2) the South Atlantic Bight (SAB), which extends from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida. The seafloor in the MAB consists predominantly of soft sediments, but some hard 

bottom habitats are sparsely distributed over the MAB shelf and are composed of bare rock, gravel, shell 

hash, and artificial reefs. In contrast, there are extensive areas of hard/live bottom on the SAB shelf. In 

deeper water, hard bottom habitats are associated with canyon walls in the MAB and with deepwater

coral along the Blake Plateau and Florida-Hatteras slope in the SAB. Locations of canyons and some 

hard bottom features are well known (e.g., Gray’s Reef). In other areas where the presence of deepwater 

corals is known but the distribution of coral sites is not well documented, broad areas have been 

designated as HAPCs by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) to protect these 

communities from physical damage by fishing gear.

The main IPF for benthic communities is seafloor disturbance; other relevant IPFs include drilling 

discharges, active acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. Several types of 

G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells, and 

placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could disturb the seafloor and result in localized 

burial or crushing of soft bottom benthic organisms. In addition, discharges from drilling deep 

stratigraphic and shallow test wells could smother benthic communities. However, the total area of 

seafloor disturbance in soft bottom areas would be a negligible percentage of the benthic habitat in the 

AOI. Because BOEM would require prior approval of G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing 

activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures, impacts on 

sensitive benthic communities such as coral, hard/live bottom, chemosynthetic, and deepwater canyon 

communities are expected to be avoided. Impacts of seafloor disturbance are expected to be negligible to 

minor, and impacts of drilling discharges are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of other IPFs on benthic communities are expected to be negligible. Active acoustic sound 

sources are expected to have little or no impact. Benthic impacts of trash and debris deposition on the 

seafloor are expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and 

USEPA regulations, and all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for 

marine debris awareness. A small fuel spill would be unlikely to reach the seafloor or contaminate 

bottom sediments.
Summary xxi

Impacts on Archaeological Resources

Submerged archaeological resources within the AOI include shipwrecks that date from early 

exploration and settlement of North America by Europeans as early as the 16th and 17th centuries. 

Submerged prehistoric sites dating between 30,000 and 3,000 Before Present (B.P.) may also be present 

within the AOI, depending on regional landform variation. The relevant IPFs for archaeological 

resources are seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Some G&G survey activities (e.g., anchoring, bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and 

shallow test wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could disturb the seafloor. 

In addition, discharges from drilling deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells could deposit sediment on 

nearby seafloor. However, BOEM would require site-specific information regarding potential 

archaeological resources prior to approving G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, 

drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM would 

use this information to ensure that impacts to archaeological resources are avoided. All authorizations for 

G&G activities that involve seafloor-disturbing activities would include requirements for operators to 

report suspected historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to BOEM and take precautions to 

protect the resource. Therefore, impacts on archaeological resources would be negligible. 

An accidental event could result in the release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel; however, a small 

fuel spill would be unlikely to reach the seafloor or contaminate bottom sediments. Impacts on 

archaeological resources would be expected to be negligible. 

Impacts on Marine Protected Areas

The Marine Protected Areas (MPA) within the AOI include two NMSs, six deepwater MPAs 

designated by the SAFMC, and numerous Federal fishery management areas. Coastal MPAs adjacent to 

the AOI include 5 national seashores, 1 National Estuarine Research Reserve that extends into Atlantic 

waters, 10 NWRs, and numerous State-designated MPAs. The relevant IPFs for MPAs are active 

acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel 

spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on benthic communities have been discussed previously and 

are expected to be negligible. Impacts on benthic communities within offshore MPAs would be similar. 

No direct acoustic impacts would be expected on coastal MPAs. However, certain coastal MPAs such as 

the Archie Carr NWR in Florida support a high level of sea turtle nesting during the summer months, and 

the impact analysis identified seismic airgun surveys as having the potential to disrupt time-critical 

activities. Therefore, for surveys offshore Brevard County during the nesting season, impacts on MPAs

are evaluated as negligible to moderate for airguns and negligible to minor for electromechanical 

sources.

Impacts of trash and debris on coastal MPAs (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) are expected to be 

avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, 

all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. 

Impacts from trash and debris on MPAs are expected to be negligible. 

Seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges could affect benthic resources within offshore MPAs. 

However, Federal regulations prohibit seafloor-disturbing activities within the two NMSs, and BOEM 

would not authorize such activities within MPAs; therefore, those impacts would not take place. Because 

BOEM would require prior approval of G&G surveys involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling 

discharges, or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures, impacts on sensitive benthic 

communities within other MPAs are expected to be avoided. Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling 

discharges would be negligible. 

An accidental fuel spill is expected to have negligible impacts on benthic resources within offshore 

MPAs because the spill would float and disperse on the sea surface and is unlikely to reach the seafloor. 

Depending on spill location, a small fuel spill could affect coastal MPAs and has the potential to oil 

threatened and endangered birds. However, given the small size of the spill in the context of the AOI, 

impacts are expected to range from negligible to moderate. 
xxii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Impacts on Other Marine Uses

Other existing marine uses in the AOI include shipping and marine transportation, military range 

complexes, civilian space program uses, sand and gravel mining, renewable energy development, oil and 

gas exploration, dredged material disposal, research activities from bottom-founded structures, and known 

sea bottom obstructions. The relevant IPFs for these other marine uses are vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones, aircraft traffic and noise, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills.

Vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones might conflicts with existing marine space uses such as 

shipping and marine transportation. During seismic airgun surveys, vessel exclusion zones are 

maintained around the survey vessels and their towed airgun arrays. The vessel exclusion zones would be 

temporary, with the duration and area dependent on the type of activity. Prior to conducting a seismic 

airgun survey, operators would submit information to the local USCG office and the local harbormaster 

for issuance of a Local Notice to Mariners specifying the survey dates and locations and the 

recommended avoidance requirements. Overall, impacts on other marine uses would be of relatively 

short duration and are expected to be negligible to minor for vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones.

Alternative A includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the possibility of helicopter traffic in 

support of the drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Aircraft traffic has the potential for 

space-use conflicts with existing marine uses such as military and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) use. All aircraft flights would originate from existing shore-based facilities and 

would file flight plans with the Federal Aviation Administration before departure. Potential use conflicts 

with military range complexes and civilian space program use are expected to be avoided through 

coordination with military commanders and NASA prior to surveys. All authorizations for permitted 

activities would include BOEM guidance for military and NASA coordination. Impacts are expected to 

be negligible. 

Some G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test 

wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) involve seafloor disturbance. BOEM 

would require prior approval of G&G surveys involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of 

bottom-founded equipment or structures. Therefore, conflicts with other marine uses of the seafloor (e.g., 

artificial reef sites, dredged material disposal sites, military use areas, etc.) are expected to be avoided, 

and impacts would be negligible. 

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on other marine uses would depend on the location of the spill, 

in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of weathering 

and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt other marine uses in some areas. 

However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response 

involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts to other marine uses from a small diesel 

fuel spill are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts on Human Resources and Land Use 

Seismic survey vessels are large, dedicated vessels that can remain offshore for weeks or months, 

with supply vessel support originating from ports along the Atlantic Coast. Five potential support bases 

were identified in support of oil and gas program seismic survey activity: Norfolk, Virginia; Wilmington, 

North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida. In contrast, 

vessels conducting G&G surveys for renewable energy or marine minerals would operate mainly at 

specific sites in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. Typically, 

these are smaller vessels that would return to their shore base daily. Vessel trips for these survey areas 

would likely be divided among several existing ports in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Depending on the location of the survey area, the vessels could 

operate from one of the five larger ports in the AOI, or any of numerous smaller ports along the coast, 

depending on whatever is convenient.

The relevant IPFs for human resources and land use are onshore support activities and accidental fuel 

spills. Based on the projected level of G&G survey activity and associated demands for shore-base space, 

supplies, and services, impacts from onshore activities on human resources and land use under 

Alternative A are expected to be negligible. 
Summary xxiii

An accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to have minimal to no impact to either the local 

economies or populations of the ports and surrounding communities. Based on the small size of the spill 

in the context of the AOI, impacts on human resources and land use are expected to be negligible. 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative

Alternatives A, B, and C were carried through the detailed environmental impact analysis in 

Chapter 4. Impacts of Alternative A have been summarized in the preceding sections, and impacts of 

Alternative B are similar except as indicated below. Alternative C (no action alternative) would have the 

lowest level of impacts for all resources because the main source of impacts (seismic airgun surveys in

support of oil and gas exploration) would not occur. Alternative C would eliminate several IPFs 

including airguns, aircraft traffic and noise, and drilling discharges. 

Most impacts under all three alternatives would be negligible or minor, and no major impacts were 

identified. Only a few impacts were identified as moderate under one or more alternatives. These 

impacts were follows:

• impacts of airguns on marine mammals (moderate under both Alternatives A and B);

• impacts of airguns on sea turtles (minor to moderate under Alternative A and 

negligible to minor under Alternative B); 

• impacts of airguns on fisheries resources and EFH (minor to moderate under both 

Alternatives A and B);

• impacts of electromechanical sources on fisheries resources and EFH (minor under 

both Alternatives A and B);

• impacts of airguns on MPAs (negligible to moderate under Alternative A and 

negligible to minor under Alternative B). The moderate rating is based on the 

potential impacts of seismic airgun surveys on sea turtle nesting at a particular coastal 

MPA (Archie Carr NWR) and is reduced to minor under Alternative B; 

• impacts of accidental fuel spills on MPAs (negligible to moderate under 

Alternatives A and B); and

• impacts of accidental fuel spills on coastal and marine birds (negligible to moderate

under all three alternatives).

Potential impacts of Alternatives A and B are broadly similar. However, there are a few important 

differences due to the additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B, as discussed in the 

following paragraphs.

The expanded time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would reduce the risk of acoustic 

and vessel strike impacts on this species. Although incidental take was not modeled for Alternative B, it 

is estimated, based on NARW distribution data used for the take estimate modeling, that the expanded 

time-area closure would avoid approximately 80 percent of the incidental takes of NARWs over the 

period of the Programmatic EIS (as compared with no closures). In contrast, the Alternative A time-area 

closure would be expected to avoid about 67 percent of the NARW incidental takes.

The expanded time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would be expected to slightly 

reduce the risk of acoustic and vessel strike impacts on some other marine mammals by precluding certain 

surveys in a portion of the AOI during certain times. Because the closure area is a small part of the AOI 

(7.5% for Alternative B vs. approximately 4.3% under Alternative A), the overall impact rating for 

marine mammals was the same under both Alternatives A and B (moderate). The expanded time-area 

closure may also slightly reduce other (non-marine-mammal) impacts related to the level of vessel traffic

in coastal waters, but not enough to change any impact ratings.

The Brevard County time-area closure under Alternative B would reduce the risk of disrupting sea 

turtle nesting in an area that is estimated to support 25 percent of all loggerhead turtle nesting in the U.S. 

Although the closure would affect only a small portion of the AOI (0.15%), the impact reduction for sea 

turtles is expected to be substantial, reducing the highest rating from moderate to minor. Because the 

negligible to moderate rating for MPAs under Alternative A was based on potential impacts on sea turtle 

nesting at the Archie Carr NWR (which is partly within Brevard County), the highest rating for MPAs 

under Alternative B would also be reduced to negligible to minor. 
xxiv Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between concurrent seismic airgun surveys under 

Alternative B may slightly reduce acoustic impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine 

biota. It may help to ensure that some areas between concurrent surveys may not be ensonified to levels 

that may cause Level A or B harassment of marine mammals, and it may reduce the likelihood of multiple 

exposures to airgun pulses. The degree of improvement has not been estimated but would not be 

expected to change any impact ratings. Even without this required separation, in practice, operators 

typically maintain a separation of about 17.5 km (9.5 nmi) between concurrent surveys to avoid 

interference (i.e., overlapping reflections received from multiple source arrays).

New information suggests that, in some circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances 

from the sound source, such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection 

of sound at these distances has any effect on marine mammals or other marine species. Therefore, BOEM 

will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and environmental analyses level as well 

as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure

programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider any potential aggregate effects from 

existing permitted surveys (if any).

The required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol under Alternative B would 

be expected to improve the effectiveness of detecting marine mammals. It is expected that some Level A 

incidental takes of marine mammals that might otherwise occur would be avoided. The degree of 

improvement has not been estimated but would not be expected to change any impact ratings. Some level 

of PAM use also would be expected under Alternative A, but it would be optional.

Cumulative Impacts

The Programmatic EIS addresses G&G activities within the 2012-2020 timeframe, and a cumulative 

activity scenario has been developed. The reasonably foreseeable future activities covered in the 

cumulative scenario include oil and gas exploration and development, renewable energy development, 

marine minerals use, geosequestration, liquefied natural gas import terminals, commercial and 

recreational fishing, military range complexes and civilian space program use, shipping and marine 

transportation, dredged material disposal, climate change, cumulative noise in the sea, new cable 

infrastructure, and cumulative vessel activity levels. IPFs were identified for each activity included in the 

cumulative scenario and were evaluated. The cumulative impact analysis for each resource area 

considered the level of incremental impact from each IPF, when added to or acting synergistically with 

other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario.

Most incremental cumulative impacts under all three alternatives would be negligible or minor, and 

no moderate or major incremental cumulative impacts were identified.

Preferred Alternative

Section 1502.14(e) of the NEPA implementing regulations requires the agency preparing an EIS to 

identify the preferred alternative if one or more exists and identify such alternative in the Final EIS. The 

“agency’s preferred alternative” is the alternative that the agency believes would fulfill its statutory 

mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other 

factors. BOEM did not identify a Preferred Alternative in the Draft Programmatic EIS. BOEM has 

reviewed the totality of the record generated by this Programmatic EIS. Factors BOEM considered in 

selecting the Preferred Alternative included assessing the impacts of the proposed action on significant 

resources in the AOI, public comments, fulfilling statutory mission and responsibilities in selecting the 

Preferred Alternative, and screening of the incremental change in cost that would occur from 

implementing the PSO and PAM mitigation measures.

Alternative B (described above) was identified as the Preferred Alternative because this alternative 

would fulfill BOEM’s statutory mission and responsibilities for authorizing G&G activities in its program 

areas and would balance economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection. By 

selecting Alternative B, the gathering of data about ocean bottom and subsurface would be allowed to go 

forward with a suite of mitigation measures in place to provide protection of marine wildlife, including 

NARWs, loggerhead and other sea turtle nesting, and marine resources. Alternative B would allow for 

non-airgun HRG surveys, subject to the HRG Survey Protocol, to occur within NARW critical habitat

areas that are closed to airgun surveys. Both modeling conducted specific to the preparation of the 
Summary xxv

Programmatic EIS and additional recent sound source modeling verification studies indicate that sounds 

from many of the non-airgun HRG sources experience transmission loss such that received sounds are not 

likely to cause physiological injury to NARWs. 

BOEM believes that Alternative B provides the highest practicable level of mitigation measures 

proposed for airgun acoustic sources and the most reasonable level of mitigation measures for 

electromechanical acoustic sources (non-airgun). Alternative B provides the most reasonably effective 

level of protection for a variety of resources including marine mammals. Alternative B would support

future G&G surveys for the three BOEM program areas – oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine 

minerals – throughout the entire AOI. Alternative B includes mitigation measures to ensure the proposed 

G&G activities comply with existing laws and regulations. 

The mitigation measures of Alternative B would add direct costs for operators undertaking G&G

activities in the AOI (e.g., PSO requirements and PAM monitoring), and they may impose indirect costs 

through inconvenience to operators by limiting the times and places for deploying or by adding costs if a 

field season is missed because of some combination of time-area closure and deployment delays. Costs 

were screened for PSO and PAM to determine if the cost of implementing these measures was cost

prohibitive.

In addition, any actions under Alternative B would, like Alternatives A and C, fall under the adaptive 

management approach. As described in Chapters 1.7.6 and 2.7.7, and in Appendix C, Section 7, the 

adaptive management approach will allow BOEM to continue to analyze the effectiveness of mitigation

measures and adjust those measures when new information becomes available. For example, site-specific 

analysis will allow for BOEM to understand the details of a specific proposed action, analyze the best 

available information at this stage, apply additional mitigation, or adjust mitigation based on the specific 

protective needs for the particular action. This will be done in context with other actions that are 

proposed or ongoing and that will be analyzed in the cumulative effects section of the site-specific NEPA

analysis. The mitigation measures included in Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative, are summarized 

below in Table S-1 and described in detail in Chapter 2 and Appendix C. A time-area closure summary 

is included in Table 2-6, and the additional costs resulting from mitigation measures are discussed in 

Chapter 2.7.4. 

Table S-1 

Summary of Mitigation Measures Included in Alternatives A and B

Measure Description Alternative A Alternative B

Guidance for Vessel 

Strike Avoidance

All authorizations for shipboard surveys, regardless of 

vessel size, would include guidance for vessel strike

avoidance while a vessel is in transit. The guidance would 

address protected species identification, vessel strike 

avoidance, and injured/dead protected species reporting in 

accordance with the NMFS Compliance Guide for the 

Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule.

Yes Yes

Guidance for Marine 

Debris Awareness

All authorizations for shipboard surveys would include 

guidance for marine debris awareness, highlighting the 

environmental and socioeconomic impacts of marine trash

and debris and operator responsibilities for ensuring that 

trash and debris are not discharged into the marine 

environment.

Yes Yes

Avoidance and 

Reporting of Historic 

and Prehistoric Sites

All authorizations for seafloor-disturbing activities would 

include requirements for operators to report suspected 

historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to BOEM 

and to take precautions to protect the resource. BOEM 

would also require reporting and avoidance for any 

previously undiscovered suspected archaeological resource 

and precautions to protect the resource.

Yes Yes
xxvi Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Measure Description Alternative A Alternative B

Avoidance of 

Sensitive Benthic 

Communities

All authorizations for seafloor-disturbing activities would 

be subject to restrictions to protect sensitive benthic 

communities (e.g., hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral

communities, and chemosynthetic communities). In areas 

where these communities are known or suspected, 

authorizations may include requirements for mapping and 

avoidance as well as pre-deployment photographic surveys 

where bottom-founded instrumentation and appurtenances 

are to be deployed.

Yes Yes

Guidance for 

Activities In or Near 

National Marine 

Sanctuaries (NMS)

BOEM would not authorize seafloor-disturbing activities 

within an NMS, and seafloor-disturbing activities 

proposed near the boundaries of an NMS would be 

assigned a setback distance by BOEM in consultation with 

the Sanctuary Manager. All authorizations for G&G

activities would include instructions to minimize impacts 

on NMS resources and users. If proposed activities 

involve seafloor disturbance near an NMS or moving the 

surface marker buoys for the Sanctuary, the operator 

would be required to contact the Sanctuary Manager for 

instructions.

Yes Yes

Guidance for Military 

and National 

Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

(NASA) 

Coordination

All authorizations for permitted activities would include 

guidance for military and NASA coordination. Vessel and 

aircraft operators would be required to establish and 

maintain early contact and coordination with the 

appropriate military command headquarters or NASA 

point of contact. Department of Defense (DoD)/BOEM 

Interagency Working Groups have been formed 

specifically to address potential conflicts of 

BOEM-permitted G&G surveys and DoD operations in the 

Atlantic.

Yes Yes

Time-Area Closure 

for North Atlantic 

Right Whales for 

Seismic Surveys

No G&G surveys using airguns would be authorized 

within the NARW critical habitat area from November 15 

to April 15, nor within the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast 

U.S. Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs) from 

November 1 through April 30. Additionally, G&G 

surveys using airguns would not be allowed in active 

Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs). Airgun surveys 

conducted outside of the critical habitat, SMAs, or DMAs 

would be required to remain at a distance such that 

received levels at those boundaries do not exceed the 

Level B harassment threshold, as determined by field 

verification or modeling.

Yes

Yes

(Expanded to a 

continuous 

zone extending 

to 20 nmi 

offshore from 

Delaware Bay 

to southern 

edge of AOI)

Seismic Airgun

Survey Protocol

All authorizations for seismic airgun surveys (those 

involving airguns as an acoustic source) would include a 

survey protocol that specifies mitigation measures for 

protected species, including an acoustic exclusion zone,

ramp-up requirements, visual monitoring by protected 

species observers, and array shutdown requirements.

Yes Yes
Summary xxvii

Measure Description Alternative A Alternative B

Time-Area Closure 

for North Atlantic 

Right Whales for 

HRG Surveys

Only HRG surveys operating at frequencies above 30 kHz 

would be allowed to occur within NARW critical habitat

from November 15 through April 15, and those surveys 

would only occur during daylight hours. Use of 

frequencies at and below 30 kHz would be evaluated by 

BOEM on a critical need basis, considering whether 

survey planning could have scheduled survey activities 

outside of the calving and nursing season and how the 

particular survey fills a critical need and would be 

authorized during daylight hours only. Use of all sound 

sources operating at and below 30 kHz in a DMA must be 

discontinued within 24 hours of its establishment. In 

addition, surveys authorized by BOEM outside, but in 

proximity of, DMA boundaries are required to remain at a 

distance such that received levels, for all sound sources, at 

these boundaries are no more than the Level B threshold.

Yes

Yes

(Expanded to a 

continuous 

zone extending 

to 20 nmi 

offshore from 

Delaware Bay 

to southern 

edge of AOI)

High-Resolution 

Geophysical (HRG)

Survey Protocol

All authorizations for non-airgun HRG surveys would 

include requirements for visual monitoring of a vessel 

strike exclusion zone. An acoustic exclusion zone would 

only be required for HRG surveys conducted with sound 

sources operating at and below 200 kHz.

Yes Yes

Time-Area Closure to 

Protect Nesting Sea 

Turtles Offshore 

Brevard County, 

Florida

A time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore 

Brevard County, Florida, during the sea turtle nesting 

season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys 

would be authorized within the closure area during that 

time. HRG surveys using only electromechanical sources 

outside the hearing range of sea turtles would be allowed 

year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, 

within the Sea Turtle Closure Area. Devices operating 

above 1.6 kHz would be outside the hearing range of sea 

turtles. Operational or monitoring surveys typically 

involve a single beam, swath or multibeam, and occasional 

side-scan sonar.

No Yes

Geographic 

Separation Between 

Simultaneous 

Seismic Airgun

Surveys

A 40-km (25-mi) geographic separation distance between 

simultaneously operating deep penetration seismic airgun

surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at 

the same time would be evaluated by BOEM at the sitespecific NEPA and environmental analyses level. BOEM 

will consider any new information available at that time to 

evaluate implementation of this measure.

No Yes

Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring (PAM)

Under Alternative B, the use of PAM would be required as 

part of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol (rather than 

optional or “encouraged” as in Alternative A). Under 

Alternative B, HRG sound sources operating at 

frequencies at and below 200 kHz may be approved for 

use during periods of reduced visibility or at night 

provided that additional monitoring technologies such as 

PAM is utilized.

Optional Required*

Implementation of 

Adaptive 

Management

Strategy 

BOEM would use an adaptive management strategy where 

BOEM may require additional measures if warranted or 

adjust programmatic mitigations as needed based upon 

new information and the site-specific environmental 

analyses.

Yes Yes

Table of Contents xxix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume I

Page

SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................xliii

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... xlvii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... li 

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

1.1. Background.............................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.2. Programmatic Approach to the NEPA Process........................................................................ 1-4

1.3. Objectives and Scope............................................................................................................... 1-6

1.3.1. Objectives.................................................................................................................. 1-6

1.3.2. Area of Interest.......................................................................................................... 1-6

1.3.3. Types of G&G Activities Analyzed .......................................................................... 1-7

1.4. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action......................................................................... 1-7

1.4.1. Background ............................................................................................................... 1-7

1.4.2. Purpose and Need...................................................................................................... 1-8

1.5. Cooperating Agencies.............................................................................................................. 1-9

1.6. Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................... 1-10

1.6.1. Rule Changes for Reorganization of Title 30: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management............... 1-10

1.6.2. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ......................................................................... 1-11

1.6.3. National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................ 1-12

1.6.4. Executive Order 12114: Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal 

Actions .................................................................................................................... 1-12

1.6.5. Coastal Zone Management Act ............................................................................... 1-12

1.6.6. Endangered Species Act.......................................................................................... 1-13

1.6.7. Marine Mammal Protection Act.............................................................................. 1-14

1.6.8. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act............................ 1-14

1.6.9. Clean Air Act .......................................................................................................... 1-15

1.6.10. Clean Water Act...................................................................................................... 1-16

1.6.11. National Historic Preservation Act.......................................................................... 1-16

1.6.12. Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...................................................................................... 1-17

1.6.13. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes ............................................................................................................. 1-17

1.6.14. Rivers and Harbors Act ........................................................................................... 1-18

1.6.15. National Marine Sanctuaries Act ............................................................................ 1-18

1.6.16. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act ................................................. 1-19

1.6.17. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments ........................................................................................................... 1-19

1.6.18. State Permitting ....................................................................................................... 1-20

1.6.19. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ........................................................................ 1-20

1.6.20. Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection...................................................... 1-21

1.6.21. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas................................................... 1-21

1.6.22. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations........................................... 1-21
xxx Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

1.7. Environmental Review Process ............................................................................................. 1-22

1.7.1. Scoping.................................................................................................................... 1-22

1.7.2. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ........................................... 1-22

1.7.3. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ........................................... 1-23

1.7.4. Record of Decision.................................................................................................. 1-23

1.7.5. Subsequent Actions Required Before Permits or Authorizations May Be 

Issued....................................................................................................................... 1-23

1.7.6 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................ 1-26

1.7.7. New Information ..................................................................................................... 1-28

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

2.1. Alternative A – The Proposed Action...................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.1. Description ................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.1.2. Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.2.1. Guidance for Vessel Strike Avoidance .................................................... 2-4

2.1.2.2. Guidance for Marine Debris Awareness.................................................. 2-6

2.1.2.3. Avoidance of Sensitive Seafloor Resources............................................. 2-6

2.1.2.3.1. Avoidance and Reporting Requirements for Historic 

and Prehistoric Sites.............................................................. 2-6

2.1.2.3.2. Avoidance Requirements for Sensitive Benthic 

Communities ......................................................................... 2-7

2.1.2.4. Guidance for Activities in or Near National Marine Sanctuaries ............ 2-7

2.1.2.5. Guidance for Military and NASA Coordination...................................... 2-8

2.1.3. Survey Protocols ....................................................................................................... 2-9

2.1.3.1. Seismic Airgun Surveys........................................................................... 2-9

2.1.3.1.1. Time-Area Closures for Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 2-9

2.1.3.1.2. Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol ........................................... 2-9

2.1.3.2. HRG Surveys ......................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.3.2.1. HRG Survey Time-Area Closure ........................................ 2-12

2.1.3.2.2. HRG Survey Protocol.......................................................... 2-13

2.1.4. Summary of Impacts for Alternative A................................................................... 2-15

2.1.4.1. Impacts on Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.2.1) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-15

2.1.4.2. Impacts on Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.2.2) for Alternative A........... 2-16

2.1.4.3. Impacts on Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.2.3) for Alternative A ..................... 2-23

2.1.4.4. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds (Chapter 4.2.4) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-26

2.1.4.5. Impacts on Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat 

(Chapter 4.2.5) for Alternative A........................................................... 2-27

2.1.4.6. Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Fish Species 

(Chapter 4.2.6) for Alternative A........................................................... 2-28

2.1.4.7. Impacts on Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.2.7) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-30

2.1.4.8. Impacts on Recreational Fisheries (Chapter 4.2.8) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-31

2.1.4.9. Impacts on Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.2.9) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-31

2.1.4.10. Impacts on Archaeological Resources (Chapter 4.2.10) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-32

2.1.4.11. Impacts on Marine Protected Areas (Chapter 4.2.11) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-33

2.1.4.12. Impacts on Other Marine Uses (Chapter 4.2.12) for Alternative A....... 2-33

2.1.4.13. Impacts on Human Resources and Land Use (Chapter 4.2.13) for 

Alternative A.......................................................................................... 2-34
Table of Contents xxxi

2.2. Alternative B – Additional Time-Area Closures, Geographic Separation of 

Simultaneous Seismic Airgun Surveys, and Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................ 2-35

2.2.1. Description .............................................................................................................. 2-35

2.2.2. Mitigation Measures................................................................................................ 2-35

2.2.2.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-36

2.2.2.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles offshore Brevard 

County, Florida for Alternative B.......................................................... 2-37

2.2.2.3. Geographic Separation between Simultaneous Seismic Airgun 

Surveys for Alternative B....................................................................... 2-37

2.2.2.4. Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol with Required Use of Passive 

Acoustic Monitoring for Alternative B.................................................. 2-38

2.2.2.5. HRG Survey Protocol with Required Use of Monitoring 

Technologies during Nighttime Operations or if Operations 

Continue During Periods of Reduced Visibility for Alternative B ........ 2-38

2.2.3. Summary of Impacts for Alternative B ................................................................... 2-38

2.2.3.1. Impacts on Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.3.1) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-39

2.2.3.2. Impacts on Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.3.2) for Alternative B........... 2-39

2.2.3.3. Impacts on Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.3.3) for Alternative B...................... 2-41

2.2.3.4. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds (Chapter 4.3.4) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-42

2.2.3.5. Impacts on Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat 

(Chapter 4.3.5) for Alternative B........................................................... 2-42

2.2.3.6. Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Fish Species 

(Chapter 4.3.6) for Alternative B........................................................... 2-43

2.2.3.7. Impacts on Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.3.7) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-43

2.2.3.8. Impacts on Recreational Fisheries (Chapter 4.3.8) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-44

2.2.3.9. Impacts on Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.3.9) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-44

2.2.3.10. Impacts on Archaeological Resources (Chapter 4.3.10) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-45

2.2.3.11. Impacts on Marine Protected Areas (Chapter 4.3.11) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-45

2.2.3.12. Impacts on Other Marine Uses (Chapter 4.3.12) for Alternative B ....... 2-46

2.2.3.13. Impacts on Human Resources and Land Use (Chapter 4.3.13) for 

Alternative B.......................................................................................... 2-46

2.3. Alternative C – No Action for Oil and Gas, Status Quo for Renewable Energy and 

Marine Minerals G&G Activity............................................................................................. 2-47

2.3.1. Description .............................................................................................................. 2-47

2.3.2. Mitigation Measures for Alternative C.................................................................... 2-47

2.3.3. Summary of Impacts for Alternative C ................................................................... 2-48

2.3.3.1. Impacts on Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.4.1) for 

Alternative C.......................................................................................... 2-48

2.3.3.2. Impacts on Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.4.2) for Alternative C........... 2-48

2.3.3.3. Impacts on Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.4.3) for Alternative C...................... 2-50

2.3.3.4. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds (Chapter 4.4.4) for 

Alternative C.......................................................................................... 2-50

2.3.3.5. Impacts on Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat 

(Chapter 4.4.5) for Alternative C........................................................... 2-51

2.3.3.6. Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Fish Species 

(Chapter 4.4.6) for Alternative C........................................................... 2-51

2.3.3.7. Impacts on Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.4.7) 

for Alternative C .................................................................................... 2-52
xxxii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2.3.3.8. Impacts on Recreational Fisheries (Chapter 4.4.8) for 

Alternative C.......................................................................................... 2-52

2.3.3.9. Impacts on Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.4.9) for 

Alternative C.......................................................................................... 2-52

2.3.3.10. Impacts on Archaeological Resources (Chapter 4.4.10) for 

Alternative C.......................................................................................... 2-53

2.3.3.11. Impacts on Marine Protected Areas (Chapter 4.4.11) for 

Alternative C.......................................................................................... 2-53

2.3.3.12. Impacts on Other Marine Uses (Chapter 4.4.12) for Alternative C ....... 2-54

2.3.3.13. Impacts on Human Resources and Land Use (Chapter 4.4.13) for 

Alternative C.......................................................................................... 2-54

2.4. Issues...................................................................................................................................... 2-55

2.4.1. Issues to be Analyzed.............................................................................................. 2-55

2.4.2. Issues Considered but Not Analyzed....................................................................... 2-56

2.5. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed............................................................................ 2-56

2.5.1. Limit Authorizing G&G Activities to Renewable Energy and Marine 

Minerals................................................................................................................... 2-56

2.5.2. Expand Permitted G&G Activities into the North Atlantic Planning Area............. 2-57

2.5.3. Reprocess Existing G&G Data................................................................................ 2-57

2.5.4. Delay the Permitting Process .................................................................................. 2-58

2.5.5. Consolidate and Coordinate Surveys ...................................................................... 2-58

2.5.6. Require Non-Airgun Acoustic Sources................................................................... 2-59

2.5.6.1. Marine Vibroseis (Vibrators)................................................................. 2-59

2.5.6.1.1. Hydraulic............................................................................. 2-60

2.5.6.1.2. Electric ................................................................................ 2-60

2.5.6.2. Low-Frequency Acoustic Source (patented) (LACS)............................ 2-61

2.5.6.3. Deep-Towed Acoustics/Geophysics System (DTAGS)......................... 2-62

2.5.6.4. Low-Frequency Passive Seismic Methods for Exploration ................... 2-63

2.5.6.5. Low-Impact Seismic Array (LISA) ....................................................... 2-64

2.5.6.6. Fiber Optic Receivers............................................................................. 2-64

2.5.6.7. Airgun Modifications to Lessen Impacts............................................... 2-64

2.5.6.7.1. Airgun Silencers.................................................................. 2-64

2.5.6.7.2. Bubble Curtains................................................................... 2-65

2.5.6.7.3. E-Source Airgun.................................................................. 2-65

2.5.6.8. Evaluation .............................................................................................. 2-65

2.6. Comparison of Impacts by Alternative .................................................................................. 2-66

2.7. Preferred Alternative (Alternative B–Additional Time-Area Closures, Required Use of 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring, and Separation of Simultaneous Airgun Surveys)................. 2-67

2.7.1. Description .............................................................................................................. 2-68

2.7.2. Statutory and Missions Requirements..................................................................... 2-69

2.7.3. Comments Received................................................................................................ 2-69

2.7.4. Factors Considered to Determine Preferred Alternative ......................................... 2-70

2.7.5. Selection Rationale.................................................................................................. 2-70

2.7.6. Cost Increase Associated with the Implementation of Additional Mitigation 

Measures for 2D Seismic Airgun Surveys.............................................................. 2-71

2.7.7. New Information and Adaptive Management ......................................................... 2-71

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

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

3.2. Oil and Gas G&G Surveys....................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1. Background and Jurisdiction..................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.2. Types of Surveys....................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.2.1. Deep Penetration Seismic Surveys........................................................... 3-5

3.2.2.1.1. 2D Seismic Exploration Surveys........................................... 3-6

3.2.2.1.2. 3D Seismic Exploration Surveys........................................... 3-6

3.2.2.1.3. Wide Azimuth and Related Multi-Vessel Surveys................ 3-7
Table of Contents xxxiii

3.2.2.1.4. Nodes and Ocean Bottom Cable Surveys.............................. 3-7

3.2.2.1.5. Vertical Cable Surveys.......................................................... 3-8

3.2.2.1.6. 4D (Time-Lapse) Surveys..................................................... 3-8

3.2.2.1.7. Vertical Seismic Profile Surveys........................................... 3-8

3.2.2.2. High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys.................................................... 3-9

3.2.2.3. Electromagnetic Surveys........................................................................ 3-10

3.2.2.3.1. Controlled Source Electromagnetic Surveys....................... 3-10

3.2.2.3.2. Magnetotelluric Surveys ..................................................... 3-10

3.2.2.4. Deep Stratigraphic and Shallow Test Drilling ....................................... 3-11

3.2.2.5. Bottom Sampling ................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.2.6. Passive Remote-Sensing Surveys .......................................................... 3-12

3.2.2.6.1. Gravity Surveys................................................................... 3-12

3.2.2.6.2. Gravity Gradiometry ........................................................... 3-12

3.2.2.6.3. Marine Magnetic Surveys ................................................... 3-12

3.2.2.6.4. Radar Imaging..................................................................... 3-12

3.2.2.6.5. Aeromagnetic Surveys ........................................................ 3-13

3.2.3. Proposed Action Scenario ....................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.3.1. Areas Considered for Oil and Gas Exploration...................................... 3-13

3.2.3.2. Projected Activity Levels....................................................................... 3-13

3.3. Renewable Energy G&G Surveys for Site Assessment and Characterization....................... 3-14

3.3.1. Background and Jurisdiction................................................................................... 3-14

3.3.2. Types of Surveys..................................................................................................... 3-15

3.3.2.1. High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys.................................................. 3-16

3.3.2.2. Geotechnical Surveys............................................................................. 3-17

3.3.2.2.1. Cone Penetrometer Tests..................................................... 3-18

3.3.2.2.2. Geologic Coring .................................................................. 3-18

3.3.2.2.3. Grab Sampling..................................................................... 3-19

3.3.2.3. Bottom-Founded Monitoring Buoy Deployments ................................. 3-19

3.3.3. Proposed Action Scenario ....................................................................................... 3-19

3.3.3.1. Areas Considered for Renewable Energy Projects ................................ 3-19

3.3.3.1.1. Mid-Atlantic Planning Area ................................................ 3-20

3.3.3.1.2. South Atlantic Planning Area.............................................. 3-20

3.3.3.1.3. Atlantic Wind Connection Transmission Cable.................. 3-20

3.3.3.2. Projected Activity Levels....................................................................... 3-21

3.4. Marine Minerals G&G Surveys............................................................................................. 3-21

3.4.1. Background and Jurisdiction................................................................................... 3-21

3.4.2. Types of Surveys..................................................................................................... 3-23

3.4.2.1. High Resolution Geophysical Surveys................................................... 3-23

3.4.2.1.1. Prospecting and Prelease Geophysical Surveys.................. 3-23

3.4.2.1.2. On-Lease Geophysical Surveys........................................... 3-24

3.4.2.2. Geotechnical Surveys............................................................................. 3-24

3.4.3. Proposed Action Scenario ....................................................................................... 3-24

3.4.3.1. Areas Considered for Marine Minerals Projects .................................... 3-24

3.4.3.2. Projected Activity Levels....................................................................... 3-25

3.4.3.2.1. High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys ............................... 3-25

3.4.3.2.2. Geotechnical Surveys.......................................................... 3-26

3.5. Proposed Action Scenario Summary and Impact-Producing Factors.................................... 3-26

3.5.1. Impact-Producing Factors for Routine Activities.................................................... 3-26

3.5.1.1. Active Acoustic Sound Sources............................................................. 3-26

3.5.1.1.1. Airguns................................................................................ 3-26

3.5.1.1.2. Electromechanical Sources.................................................. 3-27

3.5.1.2. Vessel and Equipment Noise ................................................................. 3-28

3.5.1.2.1. Vessel Noise........................................................................ 3-28

3.5.1.2.2. Equipment Noise Including Drilling Noise......................... 3-29
xxxiv Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.5.1.3. Vessel Traffic......................................................................................... 3-29

3.5.1.3.1. Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration .................................. 3-30

3.5.1.3.2. Renewable Energy Surveys................................................. 3-30

3.5.1.3.3. Marine Minerals Surveys.................................................... 3-30

3.5.1.4. Aircraft Traffic and Noise...................................................................... 3-31

3.5.1.5. Vessel Exclusion Zones......................................................................... 3-32

3.5.1.6. Vessel Wastes ........................................................................................ 3-32

3.5.1.7. Trash and Debris.................................................................................... 3-32

3.5.1.8. Seafloor Disturbance.............................................................................. 3-33

3.5.1.8.1. Bottom Sampling Activities................................................ 3-34

3.5.1.8.2. Placement of Anchors, Nodes, Cables, and Sensors........... 3-34

3.5.1.8.3. COST Wells and Shallow Test Drilling .............................. 3-34

3.5.1.8.4. Bottom-Founded Meteorological Buoys............................. 3-35

3.5.1.9. Drilling Discharges................................................................................ 3-35

3.5.1.10. Onshore Support Activities.................................................................... 3-36

3.5.2. Impact-Producing Factors for Accidental Events.................................................... 3-37

3.5.2.1. Accidental Fuel Spills............................................................................ 3-37

3.6. Cumulative Activities Scenario ............................................................................................. 3-37

3.6.1. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development............................................................. 3-38

3.6.2. Renewable Energy Development ............................................................................ 3-38

3.6.3. Marine Minerals Use ............................................................................................... 3-39

3.6.4. Geosequestration ..................................................................................................... 3-40

3.6.5. Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals............................................................................ 3-41

3.6.6. Commercial and Recreational Fishing .................................................................... 3-41

3.6.7. Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use................................. 3-41

3.6.8. Shipping and Marine Transportation....................................................................... 3-49

3.6.9. Dredged Material Disposal...................................................................................... 3-49

3.6.10. Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 3-50

3.6.11. Cumulative Noise in the Sea ................................................................................... 3-51

3.6.12. New Cable Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 3-52

3.6.13. Cumulative Vessel Activity Levels......................................................................... 3-52

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................................... 4-3

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

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

4.1.2. Impact Levels and Impact Significance Criteria ....................................................... 4-5

4.1.3. Impact-Producing Factors ......................................................................................... 4-6

4.1.4. Other Considerations................................................................................................. 4-6

4.1.4.1. Analysis and Incomplete or Unavailable Information ............................. 4-6

4.1.4.2. Space-Use Conflicts................................................................................. 4-7

4.2. Alternative A – The Proposed Action...................................................................................... 4-8

4.2.1. Benthic Communities................................................................................................ 4-9

4.2.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment ................................................ 4-9

4.2.1.1.1. Regional Overview.............................................................. 4-10

4.2.1.1.2. Sensitive Benthic Communities .......................................... 4-12

4.2.1.1.3. Artificial Reefs.................................................................... 4-16

4.2.1.2. Impacts of Routine Activities................................................................. 4-16

4.2.1.2.1. Significance Criteria............................................................ 4-16

4.2.1.2.2. Evaluation............................................................................ 4-17

4.2.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills.......................................................... 4-23

4.2.1.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 4-23
Table of Contents xxxv

4.2.2. Marine Mammals .................................................................................................... 4-27

4.2.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment .............................................. 4-27

4.2.2.1.1. Threatened and Endangered Species................................... 4-27

4.2.2.1.2. Nonlisted Marine Mammals................................................ 4-34

4.2.2.2. Impacts of Routine Activities................................................................. 4-48

4.2.2.2.1. Significance Criteria............................................................ 4-48

4.2.2.2.2. Evaluation............................................................................ 4-56

4.2.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills.......................................................... 4-72

4.2.2.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 4-72

4.2.3. Sea Turtles............................................................................................................... 4-77

4.2.3.1. Description of the Affected Environment .............................................. 4-77

4.2.3.1.1. Loggerhead Turtle ............................................................... 4-78

4.2.3.1.2. Green Turtle ........................................................................ 4-81

4.2.3.1.3. Hawksbill Turtle.................................................................. 4-83

4.2.3.1.4. Kemp’s Ridley Turtle.......................................................... 4-85

4.2.3.1.5. Leatherback Turtle .............................................................. 4-86

4.2.3.1.6. Summary of Sea Turtle Hearing Capabilities...................... 4-88

4.2.3.2. Impacts of Routine Activities................................................................. 4-90

4.2.3.2.1. Significance Criteria............................................................ 4-90

4.2.3.2.2. Evaluation............................................................................ 4-90

4.2.3.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills.......................................................... 4-97

4.2.3.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 4-98

4.2.4. Marine and Coastal Birds...................................................................................... 4-101

4.2.4.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-101

4.2.4.1.1. Threatened and Endangered Species................................. 4-101

4.2.4.1.2. Candidate Species ............................................................. 4-103

4.2.4.1.3. Other Marine and Coastal Birds........................................ 4-104

4.2.4.1.4. Migration........................................................................... 4-105

4.2.4.1.5. Bird Conservation Regions and Birds of Conservation 

Concern ............................................................................. 4-105

4.2.4.1.6. Important Bird Areas......................................................... 4-106

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

4.2.4.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-106

4.2.4.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-107

4.2.4.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-114

4.2.4.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-115

4.2.5. Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat .................................................... 4-119

4.2.5.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-119

4.2.5.1.1. Fish Resources................................................................... 4-119

4.2.5.1.2. Ichthyoplankton................................................................. 4-124

4.2.5.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat and Managed Species.................... 4-125

4.2.5.1.4. Summary of Fish and Invertebrate Hearing 

Capabilities........................................................................ 4-128

4.2.5.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-131

4.2.5.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-131

4.2.5.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-132

4.2.5.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-136

4.2.5.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-136

4.2.6. Threatened and Endangered Fish Species............................................................. 4-139

4.2.6.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-139

4.2.6.1.1. Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) .............................. 4-140

4.2.6.1.2. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) .................. 4-141

4.2.6.1.3. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) ...... 4-142

4.2.6.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-142

4.2.6.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-143

4.2.6.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-143
xxxvi Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.6.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-147

4.2.6.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-147

4.2.7. Commercial Fisheries............................................................................................ 4-151

4.2.7.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-151

4.2.7.1.1. Commercial Landings....................................................... 4-152

4.2.7.1.2. Commercial Fishing Gears................................................ 4-152

4.2.7.1.3. Commercial Fishing Locations and Seasons..................... 4-154

4.2.7.1.4. Time and Area Closures and Gear Restrictions ................ 4-157

4.2.7.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-157

4.2.7.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-157

4.2.7.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-158

4.2.7.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-162

4.2.7.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-163

4.2.8. Recreational Fisheries ........................................................................................... 4-165

4.2.8.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-165

4.2.8.1.1. Recreational Fishing Effort ............................................... 4-166

4.2.8.1.2. Recreational Fishing Locations......................................... 4-166

4.2.8.1.3. Recreational Catch Characteristics.................................... 4-167

4.2.8.1.4. Recreational Fishing Tournaments.................................... 4-167

4.2.8.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-167

4.2.8.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-168

4.2.8.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-168

4.2.8.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-170

4.2.8.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-171

4.2.9. Recreational Resources ......................................................................................... 4-173

4.2.9.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-173

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

4.2.9.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-175

4.2.9.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-175

4.2.9.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-176

4.2.9.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-177

4.2.10. Archaeological Resources..................................................................................... 4-179

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

4.2.10.1.1. Historic Shipwrecks .......................................................... 4-179

4.2.10.1.2. Prehistoric Resources........................................................ 4-180

4.2.10.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-181

4.2.10.2.1. Significance Criteria .......................................................... 4-181

4.2.10.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-182

4.2.10.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-183

4.2.10.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-183

4.2.11. Marine Protected Areas......................................................................................... 4-185

4.2.11.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-185

4.2.11.1.1. National Marine Sanctuaries............................................. 4-186

4.2.11.1.2. Deepwater Marine Protected Areas................................... 4-186

4.2.11.1.3. Other Federal Fishery Management Areas........................ 4-188

4.2.11.1.4. Coastal Marine Protected Areas........................................ 4-188

4.2.11.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-189

4.2.11.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-189

4.2.11.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-189

4.2.11.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-196

4.2.11.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-196

4.2.12. Other Marine Uses ................................................................................................ 4-201

4.2.12.1. Description of the Affected Environment ............................................ 4-201

4.2.12.1.1. Shipping and Marine Transportation................................. 4-201

4.2.12.1.2. Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space 

Program Use...................................................................... 4-202
Table of Contents xxxvii

4.2.12.1.3. Sand and Gravel Mining ................................................... 4-203

4.2.12.1.4. Renewable Energy Development ...................................... 4-203

4.2.12.1.5. Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites............................ 4-204

4.2.12.1.6. Oil and Gas Exploration.................................................... 4-204

4.2.12.1.7. Communication and Research Activities from 

Bottom-Founded Structures .............................................. 4-205

4.2.12.1.8. Known Sea Bottom Obstructions...................................... 4-206

4.2.12.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-206

4.2.12.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-206

4.2.12.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-207

4.2.12.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-213

4.2.12.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-214

4.2.13. Human Resources and Land Use........................................................................... 4-217

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

4.2.13.1.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure ................................. 4-217

4.2.13.1.2. Demographics.................................................................... 4-219

4.2.13.1.3. Economic Factors.............................................................. 4-219

4.2.13.1.4. Environmental Justice ....................................................... 4-220

4.2.13.2. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-220

4.2.13.2.1. Significance Criteria.......................................................... 4-221

4.2.13.2.2. Evaluation.......................................................................... 4-221

4.2.13.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-223

4.2.13.4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-223

4.3. Alternative B – The Proposed Action with Additional Mitigation ...................................... 4-224

4.3.1. Benthic Communities............................................................................................ 4-225

4.3.1.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-225

4.3.1.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-225

4.3.1.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-225

4.3.1.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-226

4.3.1.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-226

4.3.1.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-227

4.3.1.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-227

4.3.2. Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 4-228

4.3.2.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-228

4.3.2.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-228

4.3.2.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-229

4.3.2.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-229

4.3.2.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-230

4.3.2.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-231

4.3.2.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-231

4.3.3. Sea Turtles............................................................................................................. 4-232

4.3.3.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-232

4.3.3.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-232

4.3.3.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-233

4.3.3.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-234

4.3.3.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-235

4.3.3.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-235

4.3.3.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-236

4.3.4. Marine and Coastal Birds...................................................................................... 4-237

4.3.4.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-237

4.3.4.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-237

4.3.4.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-238
xxxviii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3.4.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-238

4.3.4.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-239

4.3.4.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-239

4.3.4.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-240

4.3.5. Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat .................................................... 4-240

4.3.5.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-240

4.3.5.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-240

4.3.5.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-241

4.3.5.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-241

4.3.5.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-242

4.3.5.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-242

4.3.5.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-243

4.3.6. Threatened and Endangered Fish Species............................................................. 4-244

4.3.6.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-244

4.3.6.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-244

4.3.6.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-244

4.3.6.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-245

4.3.6.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-246

4.3.6.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-246

4.3.6.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-246

4.3.7. Commercial Fisheries............................................................................................ 4-247

4.3.7.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-247

4.3.7.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-247

4.3.7.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-249

4.3.7.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-249

4.3.7.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-250

4.3.7.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-250

4.3.7.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-251

4.3.8. Recreational Fisheries ........................................................................................... 4-252

4.3.8.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-252

4.3.8.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-252

4.3.8.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-253

4.3.8.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-253

4.3.8.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-254

4.3.8.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-254

4.3.8.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-255

4.3.9. Recreational Resources ......................................................................................... 4-256

4.3.9.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-256

4.3.9.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-256

4.3.9.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-256

4.3.9.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-257

4.3.9.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-257

4.3.9.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-258

4.3.9.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-258

4.3.10. Archaeological Resources..................................................................................... 4-259

4.3.10.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-259

4.3.10.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-259

4.3.10.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-259

4.3.10.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-259

4.3.10.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-260
Table of Contents xxxix

4.3.10.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-260

4.3.10.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-260

4.3.11. Marine Protected Areas......................................................................................... 4-261

4.3.11.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-261

4.3.11.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-261

4.3.11.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-262

4.3.11.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-263

4.3.11.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-263

4.3.11.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-263

4.3.11.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-264

4.3.12. Other Marine Uses ................................................................................................ 4-264

4.3.12.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-265

4.3.12.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-265

4.3.12.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-265

4.3.12.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-266

4.3.12.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-266

4.3.12.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-267

4.3.12.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-267

4.3.13. Human Resources and Land Use........................................................................... 4-268

4.3.13.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-268

4.3.13.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic 

Right Whales..................................................................... 4-268

4.3.13.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles...................... 4-269

4.3.13.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys................. 4-269

4.3.13.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring................................. 4-269

4.3.13.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-270

4.3.13.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-270

4.4. Alternative C – No Action for Oil and Gas G&G Activity, Status Quo for Renewable 

Energy and Marine Minerals G&G Activity........................................................................ 4-271

4.4.1. Benthic Communities............................................................................................ 4-272

4.4.1.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-272

4.4.1.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-273

4.4.1.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-273

4.4.2. Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 4-274

4.4.2.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-274

4.4.2.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-275

4.4.2.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-275

4.4.3. Sea Turtles............................................................................................................. 4-276

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

4.4.3.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-277

4.4.3.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-278

4.4.4. Marine and Coastal Birds...................................................................................... 4-278

4.4.4.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-279

4.4.4.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-281

4.4.4.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-282

4.4.5. Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat .................................................... 4-282

4.4.5.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-282

4.4.5.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-284

4.4.5.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-284

4.4.6. Threatened and Endangered Fish Species............................................................. 4-285

4.4.6.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-285

4.4.6.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-286

4.4.6.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-286
xl Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.4.7. Commercial Fisheries............................................................................................ 4-287

4.4.7.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-287

4.4.7.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-288

4.4.7.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-288

4.4.8. Recreational Fisheries ........................................................................................... 4-288

4.4.8.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-289

4.4.8.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-289

4.4.8.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-290

4.4.9. Recreational Resources ......................................................................................... 4-290

4.4.9.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-290

4.4.9.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-291

4.4.9.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-291

4.4.10. Archaeological Resources..................................................................................... 4-291

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

4.4.10.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-292

4.4.10.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-292

4.4.11. Marine Protected Areas......................................................................................... 4-292

4.4.11.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-293

4.4.11.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-295

4.4.11.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-295

4.4.12. Other Marine Uses ................................................................................................ 4-296

4.4.12.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-296

4.4.12.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-297

4.4.12.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-297

4.4.13. Human Resources and Land Use........................................................................... 4-297

4.4.13.1. Impacts of Routine Activities............................................................... 4-298

4.4.13.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills........................................................ 4-298

4.4.13.3. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-298

4.5. Other NEPA Considerations................................................................................................ 4-298

4.5.1. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action......................................... 4-298

4.5.2. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..................................... 4-299

4.5.3. Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity.................................. 4-299

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 5-3

5.1. Development of the Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 5-3

5.2. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic EIS...................................................................... 5-3

5.3. Development of the Draft Programmatic EIS.......................................................................... 5-3

5.3.1. Comments Received During Scoping ....................................................................... 5-4

5.3.2. Cooperating Agency.................................................................................................. 5-4

5.4. Distribution of the Draft Programmatic EIS for Review and Comment.................................. 5-6

5.5. Public Hearings........................................................................................................................ 5-7

5.6. Development of the Final Programmatic EIS .......................................................................... 5-8

5.6.1. Major Differences Between the Draft and Final Programmatic EISs....................... 5-8

5.6.2. Letters of Comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS................................................ 5-8

5.6.2.1. General Comment Categories.................................................................. 5-9

5.6.2.1.1. Statements of Opinion........................................................... 5-9

5.6.2.1.2. Regulatory Process Comments.............................................. 5-9

5.6.2.1.3. Alternative Analysis Methodology Comments................... 5-10

5.6.2.1.4. Resource Area Comments................................................... 5-10

5.6.2.1.5. Mitigation Measure Comments........................................... 5-10

5.6.2.2. General Response to Comments ............................................................ 5-10

5.6.3. Distribution of the Final Programmatic EIS............................................................ 5-11

5.7. Consultations.......................................................................................................................... 5-14

5.7.1. Coastal Zone Management Act ............................................................................... 5-14

5.7.2. Endangered Species Act.......................................................................................... 5-15
Table of Contents xli

5.7.3. Marine Mammal Protection Act.............................................................................. 5-16

5.7.4. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act............................ 5-16

5.7.5. National Historic Preservation Act.......................................................................... 5-17

5.7.6. National Marine Sanctuaries Act ............................................................................ 5-17

5.7.7. Department of Defense/National Aeronautics and Space Administration .............. 5-18

5.7.8. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments........................... 5-18

6. REFERENCES CITED........................................................................................................................ 6-3

7. PREPARERS ....................................................................................................................................... 7-3

7.1. BOEM Preparers and Reviewers ............................................................................................. 7-3

7.2. Contractor Preparers ................................................................................................................ 7-4

8. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ 8-3

FIGURES......................................................................................................................................... Figures-3 

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................... Tables-3 

KEYWORD INDEX................................................................................................................... Keywords-3 
xlii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Volume II

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................xvii

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................... xxi

APPENDIX A. SECTION 7 CONSULTATION UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT...... A-1 

Volume III

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................xvii

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................... xxi

APPENDIX B. STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS....................................... B-1 

APPENDIX C. EXISTING REGULATIONS, PROTECTIVE MEASURES, AND MITIGATION ... C-1 

APPENDIX D. ACOUSTIC MODELING REPORT ............................................................................ D-1 

APPENDIX E. ACOUSTIC MODELING AND MARINE MAMMAL INCIDENTAL TAKE 

METHODOLOGY, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS ..................................................... E-1 

APPENDIX F. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS .................................................. F-1 

APPENDIX G. RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 

PROGRAM, ATLANTIC REGION, 2006 TO PRESENT........................................... 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. COOPERATING AGENCY......................................................................................... K-1 

APPENDIX L. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS........................... L-1 

APPENDIX M. SUMMARY OF PENDING ACTIONS AND CHANGES......................................... M-1 
List of Figures xliii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1-1. Area of Interest for the Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS. .....................................Figures-3

Figure 1-2. Primary Steps in the NEPA Process for the Programmatic EIS..............................Figures-4

Figure 2-1. Summary of Speed Restrictions and Locations for Vessel Operators to 

Comply with the Right Whale Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105). ..........Figures-5

Figure 2-2. Time-Area Closures under Alternative A................................................................Figures-6

Figure 2-3. Time-Area Closures under Alternative B................................................................Figures-7

Figure 2-4. Time-Area Closures Offshore Brevard County under Alternative B. .....................Figures-8

Figure 2-5. Location of 2D Seismic Lines Shot within the Area of Interest in the 1970’s 

and 1980’s. ..............................................................................................................Figures-9

Figure 2-6. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under 

Alternative A. ........................................................................................................Figures-10

Figure 2-7. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under 

Alternative B. ........................................................................................................Figures-11

Figure 3-1. Simple Illustration of a Marine Seismic Survey Using Streamers. .......................Figures-12

Figure 3-2. Illustration of the Difference between 2D and 3D Streamer Survey 

Coverage................................................................................................................Figures-12

Figure 4-1. Area of Interest for the Proposed Action...............................................................Figures-13

Figure 4-2. Seafloor Features along the Mid- and South Atlantic Continental Margin. ..........Figures-14

Figure 4-3. Distribution of Hard/Live Bottom Habitats and Collected Coral Locations 

in the Area of Interest............................................................................................Figures-15

Figure 4-4. Locations of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) Designated by 

the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, New England Fishery 

Management Council, and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.................Figures-16

Figure 4-5. Location of the Blake Ridge Diapir Site Studied by Van Dover et al. (2003) ......Figures-17

Figure 4-6. Artificial Reefs in the Area of Interest. ................................................................. Figures-18

Figure 4-7. North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat and U.S. Seasonal Management 

Areas (50 CFR § 224.105).....................................................................................Figures-19

Figure 4-8. North Atlantic Right Whale Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Use ....................Figures-20

Figure 4-9. Distribution of Fin Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC Shipboard 

and Aerial Surveys during the Summers of 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 

and 2007 ................................................................................................................Figures-21

Figure 4-10. Distribution of Humpback Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC 

Shipboard and Aerial Surveys during the Summers of 1998, 1999, 2002, 

2004, 2006, and 2007 ............................................................................................Figures-22

Figure 4-11. Distribution of Sei Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC Shipboard 

and Aerial Surveys during the Summers of 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 

and 2007 ................................................................................................................Figures-23

Figure 4-12. Distribution of Sperm Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC Shipboard 

and Aerial Surveys during the Summer in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2006.....Figures-24
xliv Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-13. Florida Manatee Critical Habitat (50 CFR § 17.95)..............................................Figures-25

Figure 4-14. Densities of Sea Turtle Nests Reported for Individual Counties within the 

Area of Interest for the 2010 Nesting Season........................................................Figures-26

Figure 4-15. Location of the Four Recovery Units for the Loggerhead Turtle in the U.S.........Figures-27

Figure 4-16. Estimated Annual Number of Loggerhead Nests in the Southeastern U.S., 

Bahamas (including Cay Sal Bank), Cuba, and Mexico, 2001-2008 ....................Figures-27

Figure 4-17. Atlantic Flyway Migratory Routes........................................................................Figures-28

Figure 4-18. Location of Critical Habitat for the Smalltooth Sawfish.......................................Figures-29

Figure 4-19. Locations of All Smalltooth Sawfish Sightings Recorded, 1999-2009.................Figures-30

Figure 4-20. Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) for the Atlantic Sturgeon ..........................Figures-31

Figure 4-21. Commercial Landings and Value by Month within the Area of Interest 

in 2012...................................................................................................................Figures-32

Figure 4-22. Commercial Landings and Value by Gear Type within the Area of Interest 

in 2012...................................................................................................................Figures-32

Figure 4-23. Locations of Selected Seasonal and/or Area Closures to Commercial 

Fishing in Federal Waters Offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 

States .....................................................................................................................Figures-33

Figure 4-24. Regulated Trap/Pot Areas under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan........................................................................................................................Figures-34

Figure 4-25. Regulated Gillnet Areas under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan........................................................................................................................Figures-34

Figure 4-26. Numbers of Recreational Angler Trips by Individual States within the Area 

of Interest from 2008 through 2012.......................................................................Figures-35

Figure 4-27. Numbers of Recreational Angler Trips by Month within the Area of Interest 

from 2008 through 2012........................................................................................Figures-35

Figure 4-28. Numbers of Recreational Angler Trips (stacked) by Fishing Location in the 

Mid-Atlantic States (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) and South Atlantic 

States (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Florida East Coast) 

from 2008 through 2012........................................................................................Figures-36

Figure 4-29. Numbers and Types of Fishes Landed by Recreational Anglers in the 

Mid-Atlantic States (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) from 2008 through 

2012.......................................................................................................................Figures-36

Figure 4-30. Numbers and Types of Fishes Landed by Recreational Anglers in the South 

Atlantic States (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Florida 

East Coast) from 2008 through 2012.....................................................................Figures-37

Figure 4-31. Shipwrecks and Obstructions in the Area of Interest. ...........................................Figures-38

Figure 4-32. Model Showing Location of Paleochannels within the Georgia Bight .................Figures-39

Figure 4-33. Marine Protected Areas along Coastal and Nearshore Waters of MidAtlantic and South Atlantic States.........................................................................Figures-40

Figure 4-34. Deepwater Marine Protected Areas Designated by the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) ..............................................................Figures-41

Figure 4-35. State-Designated Marine Protected Areas along the Mid-Atlantic and 

South Atlantic Coasts............................................................................................Figures-42
List of Figures xlv

Figure 4-36. Aids to Navigation, Shipping Lanes, Precaution Areas, Fairways, and 

Traffic Separation Schemes along the Atlantic Coast ...........................................Figures-43

Figure 4-37. Military Use, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-

Restricted, and Ordnance Disposal Areas along the Atlantic Coast......................Figures-44

Figure 4-38. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts................................................................Figures-45

Figure 4-38a. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the 

Mid-Atlantic Coast. ...............................................................................................Figures-46

Figure 4-38b. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the South 

Atlantic Coast. .......................................................................................................Figures-47

Figure 4-38c. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the Florida 

Coast......................................................................................................................Figures-48

Figure 4-39. Identified Offshore Wind Planning Areas (inclusive of actual leased areas 

and/or wind energy areas) along the Mid-Atlantic Coast......................................Figures-49

Figure 4-40. Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites along the Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Coasts.......................................................................................................Figures-50

Figure 4-41. Locations of the 51 Wells Drilled on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) between 1975 and 1984 (also shown is the location of the proposed 

OCS oil and gas Lease Sale 220 area offshore Virginia [lease sale was 

canceled on July 28, 2010])...................................................................................Figures-51

Figure 4-42. Location of U.S. Navy Research Towers in the Georgia Bight that are Part 

of the South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore Observational Network 

(SABSOON) Operated by Skidaway Institute of Oceanography..........................Figures-52

Figure 4-43. Existing Submarine Cables Located in the Area of Interest..................................Figures-53

Figure 5-1. State-by-State Distribution Showing the Origin of Scoping Comments 

(primarily those submitted April 2 – May 17, 2010).............................................Figures-54

List of Tables xlvii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table S-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Included in Alternatives A and B....................................xli

Table 1-1. Major Federal Laws and Regulations Applicable to the Proposed Action..................Tables-3 

Table 1-2. BOEM G&G Permits Requiring Consistency Review under 15 CFR part 930, 

subpart D for Approved State Coastal Zone Management Programs..........................Tables-5 

Table 2-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Included in Alternatives A and B..........................Tables-6 

Table 2-2. Applicability of Mitigation Measures to G&G Survey Types under Alternative A....Tables-9 

Table 2-3. Observer Requirements for G&G Survey Types....................................................... Tables-10

Table 2-4. Comparison of Impact Levels for Alternatives A, B, and C......................................Tables-11

Table 2-5. Applicability of Time-Area Closures and Other Mitigation to G&G Survey 

Types under Alternative B ......................................................................................... Tables-14

Table 2-6. Time-Area Closure Summary.................................................................................... Tables-16

Table 2-7. Estimated Protected Species Observer (PSO) and Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

(PAM) costs for Proposed Atlantic 2D Surveys........................................................ Tables-17

Table 3-1. Types of G&G Activities Included in This Programmatic EIS ................................. Tables-18

Table 3-2. Program Area, G&G Activity, Permitting Authority, and Typical NEPA Action ....Tables-19

Table 3-3. Projected Levels of G&G Activities for Oil and Gas Exploration in the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020...................................Tables-20

Table 3-4. Projected Levels of Miscellaneous G&G Activities for Oil and Gas Exploration 

in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 

2012-2020.................................................................................................................. Tables-21

Table 3-5. Locations and Areas for Renewable Energy Site Characterization and 

Assessment Activities Offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning 

Areas.......................................................................................................................... Tables-22

Table 3-6. Projected Levels of G&G Activities for Renewable Energy Site Characterization 

and Assessment in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 

2012-2020.................................................................................................................. Tables-23

Table 3-7. Projected Levels of High-Resolution Geophysical (HRG) Surveys for OCS Sand 

Borrow Projects in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 

2012-2020.................................................................................................................. Tables-24

Table 3-8. Projected Levels of Geotechnical Surveys for Outer Continental Shelf Sand 

Borrow Projects in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 

2012-2020.................................................................................................................. Tables-25

Table 3-9. Scenario Elements for Proposed G&G Activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020.......................................................................... Tables-26

Table 3-10. Impact-Producing Factors.......................................................................................... Tables-28

Table 3-11. Characteristics of Active Acoustic Sound Sources Included in the Proposed 

Action ........................................................................................................................ Tables-29

Table 3-12. Summary of Annual Navy Exercises within and Adjacent to the AOI .....................Tables-30

Table 3-13. Summary of Vessel Activity in the Area or Interest, by Activity Type.....................Tables-32
xlviii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-1. Impact-Producing Factors for G&G Activities.......................................................... Tables-33

Table 4-2. Preliminary Screening of Potential Impacts (Leopold Matrix)..................................Tables-35

Table 4-3. Sources for G&G Impact-Producing Factors............................................................. Tables-36

Table 4-4. Marine Mammals Potentially Occurring in the Area of Interest ...............................Tables-37

Table 4-5. Designated U.S. and Canadian Seasonal Management Areas for the North 

Atlantic Right Whale ................................................................................................. Tables-39

Table 4-6. Functional Marine Mammal Hearing Groups, Associated Auditory Bandwidths, 

and Marine Mammal Species Present in the Area of Interest....................................Tables-39

Table 4-7. Existing and Proposed Injury and Behavior Exposure Criteria for Cetaceans and 

Pinnipeds Exposed to Pulsed Sounds ........................................................................ Tables-40

Table 4-8. Summary of Radial Distances to the 160-dB and 180-dB (rms) Isopleths from a 

Single Pulse for Various Equipment.......................................................................... Tables-41

Table 4-9. Annual Level A Take Estimates from Seismic Airgun Sources Using Southall 

et al. (2007) Criteria for Marine Mammal Species during the Project Period 

(2012-2020) ............................................................................................................... Tables-42

Table 4-10. Annual Level A Takes Estimates from Seismic Airgun Sources Using 180-dB 

Criteria for Marine Mammal Species during the Project Period (2012-2020) ..........Tables-43

Table 4-11. Annual Level B Take Estimates (160-dB criteria) from Airgun Surveys for 

Marine Mammal Species during the Project Period (2012-2020) .............................Tables-44

Table 4-12. Annual Level A Take Estimates from All Non-Airgun High-Resolution 

Geophysical Surveys Using Southall et al. (2007) Criteria for Marine Mammal 

Species during the Project Period (2012-2020)......................................................... Tables-45

Table 4-13. Annual Level A Take Estimates from All Non-Airgun High-Resolution 

Geophysical Surveys Using 180-dB Criteria for Marine Mammal Species 

during the Project Period (2012-2020) ...................................................................... Tables-46

Table 4-14. Annual Level B Take Estimates from All Non-Airgun High-Resolution 

Geophysical Surveys Using 160-dB Criteria for Marine Mammal Species 

during the Project Period (2012-2020) ...................................................................... Tables-47

Table 4-15. Comparison of Take Estimates from Acoustic Sources, without Mitigation ............Tables-48

Table 4-16. Sea Turtles Occurring in the Area of Interest ............................................................ Tables-50

Table 4-17. Families of Seabirds, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds Occurring in the Area of 

Interest ....................................................................................................................... Tables-51

Table 4-18. Important Bird Areas within Offshore, Nearshore, and Coastal Habitats Within 

and Adjacent to the Area of Interest .......................................................................... Tables-53

Table 4-19. Plant, Invertebrate, and Fish Species and Species Groups Broadly Associated 

with Demersal and Pelagic Habitats in the Area of Interest Managed by the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, New England Fishery Management Council, and/or Highly Migratory 

Species Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service .......................................... Tables-54

Table 4-20. Hard Bottom Species with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of 

Interest ....................................................................................................................... Tables-55

Table 4-21. Soft Bottom Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified 

within the Area of Interest ......................................................................................... Tables-57

Table 4-22. Coastal Pelagic Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified 

within the Area of Interest ......................................................................................... Tables-61
List of Tables xlix

Table 4-23. Small Coastal Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

Identified within the Area of Interest......................................................................... Tables-63

Table 4-24. Large Coastal Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

Identified within the Area of Interest......................................................................... Tables-64

Table 4-25. Highly Migratory Fishes and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified 

within the Area of Interest ......................................................................................... Tables-67

Table 4-26. Pelagic Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified 

within the Area of Interest ......................................................................................... Tables-69

Table 4-27. Summary of Marine Fish Hearing Sensitivity ........................................................... Tables-70

Table 4-28. Commercial Landings within the Area of Interest during 2008-2012.......................Tables-71

Table 4-29. Important Commercial Species for Each State Occurring within the Area of 

Interest during 2006-2009.......................................................................................... Tables-71

Table 4-30. Commercial Fishing Landings and Value for Each State within the Area of 

Interest during 2012................................................................................................... Tables-72

Table 4-31. Seasonal and/or Area Closures to Commercial Fishing in Federal Waters 

Offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic States................................................ Tables-73

Table 4-32. Partial List of Recreational Fishing Tournaments within the Area of Interest ..........Tables-75

Table 4-33. Selected Parks, Seashores, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges along the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts.................................................................... Tables-76

Table 4-34. Types of Recreational Activities by Location in the Area of Interest and along 

the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts.............................................................. Tables-77

Table 4-35. Economic Contribution of Marine-Based Tourism and Recreation to State 

Economies in 2008 .................................................................................................... Tables-78

Table 4-36. Economic Contribution of Leisure and Hospitality to Coastal Economies in 2008 ..Tables-78

Table 4-37. Summary of Federal, Partnership, Federal Fishery Management, and State 

Designated Marine Protected Areas Listed in the National System of Marine 

Protected Areas.......................................................................................................... Tables-79

Table 4-38. Population of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated with Five Atlantic 

Coast Ports in 2000 and 2010 .................................................................................... Tables-83

Table 4-39. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

Associated with Five Atlantic Coast Ports in 2010 ................................................... Tables-83

Table 4-40. Labor Force and Unemployment in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

Associated with Five Atlantic Coast Ports in January 2011......................................Tables-83

Table 4-41. Minority Presence in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated with Five 

Atlantic Coast Ports in 2010, Compared with State and National Averages.............Tables-84

Table 4-42. Low-Income Presence in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated with Five 

Atlantic Coast Ports in 2009, Compared with State and National Averages.............Tables-85

Table 4-43. Minority Presence in Fishing Communities in 2000 in States Adjacent to the 

Area of Interest .......................................................................................................... Tables-86

Table 4-44. Low-Income Presence in Fishing Communities in States Adjacent to the Area 

of Interest in 2000...................................................................................................... Tables-87

Table 5-1. Major Changes to the Programmatic EIS .................................................................. Tables-88

Table 5-2. National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) Consultation Requirements and the 

Applicable Programmatic EIS Chapters.................................................................... Tables-90

Acronyms and Abbreviations li

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degree Celsius

°F degree Fahrenheit

μPa micropascal

1D one-dimensional

2D two-dimensional

3D three-dimensional

4C four-component

4D four-dimensional

ABR auditory brainstem response

ac acre

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

AEP auditory evoked potential

AFTT Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

AIM© Acoustic Integration Model©

AIS Automatic Identification System

AN(SW)T ambient-noise (surface-wave) 

tomography

AOI Area of Interest

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act

AUV autonomous underwater vehicle

AWC Atlantic Wind Connection

AWOIS Automated Wreck and Obstruction 

Information System

BA Biological Assessment

bbl barrel

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BO Biological Opinion

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement

BOP blowout preventer

B.P. before present

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CETAP Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program

CetMap Cetacean Density and Distribution 

Mapping Group

CetSound Underwater Sound Field Mapping 

Group

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CITES Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Flora 

and Fauna

CHSRA Cape Hatteras Special Research Area

cm centimeter

cm2 square centimeter

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO carbon monoxide

COA Conditions of Approval

COE (U.S. Army) Corps of Engineers

COLREGS International Regulations for Preventing 

Collisions at Sea

COP Construction and Operations Plan

COST Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test

CMP Coastal Management Program

CPT cone penetrometer test

CSA CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

CSEM controlled source electromagnetic

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dB decibel

DHI direct hydrocarbon indicator

DLI daylight imaging

DMA Dynamic Management Area

DOCD Development Operations Coordination 

Document

DoD Department of Defense

DPP Development and Production Plan

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DTAGS deep-towed acoustics/geophysical 

system 

EA Environmental Assessment

ECS Extended Continental Shelf

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EP Exploration Plan

EPAct Energy Policy Act

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code

FAZ full azimuth

FCMA (Magnuson-Stevens) Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FMC Fishery Management Council

FMP Fishery Management Plan

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

ft feet

ft2 square feet

FR Federal Register

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

FWS (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service

G&G geological and geophysical

GADNR Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources

gal gallon

GAP General Activities Plan

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS geographic information system

GMWD Global Maritime Wrecks Database

GOMEX Gulf of Mexico (Range Complex)

GPS global positioning system

GRT gross registered ton

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

GW gigawatt

H2S hydrogen sulfide
lii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

ha hectare

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

HESS High Energy Seismic Survey (team)

HMS highly migratory species

hr hour

HRG high-resolution geophysical

HyMAS hydrocarbon microtremor analysis

Hz hertz

IAGC International Association of 

Geophysical Contractors

IBA Important Bird Area

IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization

IMARPE Instituto del Mar del Peru

in inch

in2 square inch

in3 cubic inch

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change

IPF impact-producing factor

ISRP International Scientific Review Panel

ISSMGE International Society for Soil 

Mechanics and Geotechnical 

Engineering

ITA Incidental Take Authorization

ITS Incidental Take Statement

IUCN International Union for Conservation of 

Nature

IVI Industrial Vehicles International, Inc.

IWC International Whaling Commission

IWG-PAM Interagency Working Group on Passive 

Acoustic Monitoring in U.S. Atlantic 

OCS Waters

IWG-SCM Interagency Working Group on South 

and Mid-Atlantic OCS Planning 

Areas Spatial Conflict Minimization

JAX Jacksonville (Range Complex)

kg kilogram

kHz kilohertz

km kilometer

km2 square kilometer

kn knot

kWh kilowatt-hour

L liter

LACS low-frequency acoustic source

lb pound

LFPS low frequency passive seismic

LISA low-impact seismic array

LNG liquefied natural gas

LOA Letter of Authorization

m meter

m2 square meter

m3 cubic meter

MAB Mid-Atlantic Bight

MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council

MARAD Maritime Administration

MARPOL International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MARS Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport

MBES multi-beam echosounder system

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mg/L milligrams per liter

MHK marine hydrokinetic

MHW mean high water

mi mile

mi2 square mile

min minute

ml milliliter

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPA Marine Protected Area

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSD marine sanitation device

MT magnetotelluric

mt metric ton

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt-hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NABCI North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative

NARW North Atlantic right whale

NARWSS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting 

Survey

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NavAid Aids to Navigation

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NDBC National Data Buoy Center

NEFMC New England Fishery Management 

Council

NEP National Estuary Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

nmi nautical mile

nmi2 square nautical mile

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NOA Notice of Availability

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NODE (U.S.) Navy Operating Area Density 

Estimates

NOI Notice of Intent

NOPP National Oceanographic Partnership 

Program

NOS National Ocean Service (NOAA)

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

NRC National Research Council

NRDC National Resources Defense Council

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRU Northern Recovery Unit

NSF National Science Foundation

NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators
Acronyms and Abbreviations liii

NWP Nationwide Permit

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

ODMDS ocean dredged material disposal site

OEA Overseas Environmental Assessment

OECA Oculina Experimental Closed Area

OEIS Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

OPAREA Operating Area

OREP Office of Renewable Energy Programs

OSC Orbital Sciences Corporation

OSWinD Offshore Wind Innovation and 

Demonstration

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PAM passive acoustic monitoring

PBR Potential Biological Removal

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PCPT piezocone penetration test

PFRU Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit

PGS Petroleum Geo-Services

P.L. Public Law

ppm parts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSO protected species observer

PTS permanent threshold shift

PVC polyvinyl chloride

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act

rms root mean square

ROD Record of Decision

ROV remotely operated vehicle

s second

SAB South Atlantic Bight

SABSOON South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore 

Observational Network

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council

SAI Southwick Associates, Inc.

SAP Site Assessment Plan

SBF synthetic-based fluid

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources

Secretary Secretary of the Interior

SEL sound exposure level

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SMA Seasonal Management Area

SoundMap Underwater Sound Field Mapping 

Working Group

SOx sulphur oxides

sp. species

SPL sound pressure level

spp. multiple species

sVGP small Vessel General Permit

Tcf trillion cubic feet

TED turtle excluder device

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TRC TRC Environmental Corporation

TTS temporary threshold shift

UAV uninhabited aerial vehicle

UME Unusual Mortality Event

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDOA U.S. Department of the Army

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDOD U.S. Department of Defense

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior

USDON U.S. Department of the Navy

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

V.A.C. Virginia Administrative Code

VACAPES Virginia Capes (Range Complex)

VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission

VSP vertical seismic profile 

VOC volatile organic compound

WAZ wide azimuth

WBF water-based fluid

WEA Wind Energy Area

WFF Wallops Flight Facility

yd3 cubic yard

CHAPTER 1 

 

INTRODUCTION

Introduction 1-3

1. INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is issuing this Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (Programmatic EIS) to describe and evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable geological and geophysical (G&G) survey 

activities in Federal waters of the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and adjacent 

State waters (Figure 1-1). The Programmatic EIS examines G&G survey activities for three program 

areas: oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals. The Programmatic EIS determines whether 

significant impacts to Atlantic resources could occur as a result of G&G activities and, where needed, 

specifies mitigation and monitoring measures to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts. Preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS will help ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

other applicable laws, including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA), National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), and Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA). 

Importantly, this Programmatic EIS will not by itself authorize any G&G activities on the Atlantic 

OCS. As described in Chapter 1.7.5, there are a number of subsequent actions and decisions that need to 

be made prior to BOEM authorizing any G&G activities. For example, BOEM plans to develop 

site-specific environmental analyses under NEPA. The NEPA analysis may result in additional or 

adjusted mitigation and monitoring measures depending on the content of the site-specific request. In 

addition, other authorizations and consultations may be required (e.g., under the MMPA or CZMA). 

1.1. BACKGROUND

As a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), BOEM’s primary responsibilities are to 

manage the exploration and development of oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine mineral resources 

located on the Nation’s OCS. BOEM seeks to appropriately balance economic development, energy 

independence, and environmental protection through oil and gas exploration and development, renewable 

energy development, mineral and other resources exploration and development, and environmental 

reviews and studies. To fulfill its responsibilities, BOEM follows the general guiding principles of 

(1) being responsive to the public’s concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the quality of 

life for all Americans by lending BOEM assistance and expertise to economic development and 

environmental protection.

BOEM has prepared this Final Programmatic EIS in compliance with the NEPA of 1969 (42 United 

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

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] parts 1500-1508); the USDOI Manual Part 516; the USDOI Implementation of NEPA (43 CFR 

part 46); and Executive Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions. The 

NEPA process is designed to ensure environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions are 

considered in the decision-making process. Federal agencies are encouraged to integrate the NEPA 

process with other planning at the earliest stage to ensure planning and decisions reflect environmental 

values, avoid delays, and address potential conflicts. By preparing this Final Programmatic EIS at this 

stage in the establishment of a program for G&G activities on the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS, BOEM 

is acting consistently with CEQ provisions for applying NEPA early in the decision-making process 

(40 CFR § 1501.2).

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (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 Energy Policy Act (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 Minerals Management 

Service (MMS), now BOEM. On April 22, 2009, BOEM promulgated final regulations implementing 

this authority at 30 CFR part 585. The OCSLA defines the term “exploration” as the process of searching 

for minerals, including geophysical surveys where magnetic, gravity, seismic, or other systems are used to 

detect or imply the presence of such minerals. The Offices of Strategic Resources, Environmental 
1-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Programs, and Renewable Energy Programs within BOEM administer mineral resources and alternative 

energy uses on the OCS. BOEM will use this document as a planning and management tool to balance 

orderly resource development while protecting the human, marine, and coastal environments.

The OCSLA directs USDOI to ensure G&G data are obtained in a technically safe and 

environmentally sound manner. BOEM regulations (30 CFR § 551.6) for the oil and gas program state 

that permit holders involved in G&G activities for oil and gas must not: 

1. interfere with or endanger operations under any lease, right-of-way, easement, 

right-of-use, Notice, or permit issued or maintained under the Act;

2. cause harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life), property, or to 

the marine, coastal, or human environment;

3. cause harm or damage to any mineral resource (in areas leased or not leased);

4. cause pollution;

5. disturb archaeological resources; 

6. create hazardous or unsafe conditions; or

7. unreasonably interfere with or cause harm to other uses of the area.

This document will also serve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as an assessment of potential impacts to marine resources 

under their jurisdiction. NMFS has jurisdiction for Section 7 consultations regarding threatened and 

endangered species under the ESA, for Incidental Take Authorizations (ITA) under the MMPA, and for 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (FCMA). NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has jurisdiction for 

permits under ONMS regulations and sanctuary consultation under the NMSA.

1.2. PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH TO THE NEPA PROCESS

In 1990, as part of the USDOI’s annual appropriations act, Congress began a moratorium prohibiting

Federal spending on oil and gas development on the Atlantic OCS. In 1998, President Clinton issued an 

EO that continued leasing restrictions in the Atlantic. Both Congressional and Executive Office 

moratoria were allowed to expire or were lifted, respectively, in 2008. The primary goal in choosing not 

to extend the moratoria was to increase domestic OCS energy production. The decision was influenced 

by policies to diversify domestic energy production, including renewable energy programs, as well as by 

the availability of new technology enabling activity in deeper waters.

The absence of congressional moratoria was expected to lead to increased coordination between State 

and Federal levels of government to address economic and environmental issues related to Atlantic OCS 

energy development. To begin that process, President Obama established an Interagency Ocean Policy 

Task Force in 2009 to develop recommendations for a national policy that ensures the protection, 

maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources. 

On July 19, 2010, President Obama signed EO 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes, adopting recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force for developing a 

recommended framework for effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). 

In the 2010 USDOI, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act (P.L. 111-88), the

Conference Report (Report 111-316) to Congress stated that it supports “the Administration’s efforts to 

secure a balanced energy portfolio that carefully weighs what is in the best interest of our energydependent nation with what is in the best interest of our natural environment. Future coordinated efforts 

to pursue additional oil and gas resources in the OCS must include the opportunity to apply advanced 

technologies, be based on the best available science, and take into account the potential environmental 

impacts of such potential development. Therefore, the conferees direct BOEM, pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act, to conduct a Programmatic EIS to evaluate potential significant environmental 

effects of multiple G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS.” 

BOEM currently has no programmatic NEPA coverage for evaluating G&G activities in Federal 

waters of the Atlantic. Requests to conduct G&G activities in support of renewable energy and marine 

minerals programs are processed and authorized as received, but until now, there has been no 
Introduction 1-5

programmatic-level evaluation for the entire Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. Nine companies 

have submitted 13 seismic applications, 5 additional gravity applications, and 5 additional magnetic 

applications for G&G activities in support of oil and gas exploration, and industry has expressed interest 

in expanding activities into the Atlantic offshore waters. Given the scope of proposed oil and gas surveys 

(i.e., larger scale/area and duration) and their potential cumulative impacts, BOEM has determined a 

Programmatic EIS under NEPA is required prior to permitting any new, large-scale G&G activities. 

Coverage of these activities under a Programmatic EIS will reduce duplication of effort in future 

environmental documentation while providing a format for comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis 

by examining G&G activities as a whole. This document analyzes a broad range of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts associated with marine G&G activities in addition to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable projects in the area.

This Programmatic EIS establishes a framework for subsequent environmental documents for 

site-specific actions while identifying and analyzing appropriate mitigation measures to be used during 

future G&G activities on the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS. The impacts of future site-specific actions 

will be addressed in subsequent NEPA evaluations, per CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1502.20), by tiering 

from this programmatic evaluation.

The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a NEPA analysis that evaluates a specific 

proposal for oil and gas, renewable energy, or marine minerals leasing in the Area of Interest (AOI) and 

does not authorize an OCS lease sale. Any lease sale would include a specific NEPA evaluation for that 

proposed action. A NEPA evaluation for approving the OCS plans that actualize leases for oil and gas, 

renewable energy, or marine minerals exploration and development are also not part of this proposed 

action.

Certain G&G activities are necessary precursor steps needed to (1) judge whether or not there is 

industry interest for oil and gas leasing; (2) assess the feasibility of site development for a renewable 

energy project; and (3) analyze marine minerals quantity and quality for use in shoreline and coastal 

restoration projects in the AOI. The scope of this Programmatic EIS includes a NEPA analysis of specific 

types of G&G activity that can take place either before leasing or after. It includes the G&G activities 

needed for operators to make business decisions about acquiring leases and the G&G activities that can 

take place on a lease once it has been acquired by an operator.

This Programmatic EIS has been reviewed by NMFS to ensure it adequately addresses impacts to 

marine resources under their jurisdiction. This Programmatic EIS assesses impacts to species of marine 

mammals, sea turtles, fishes, and birds listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. BOEM 

conducted ESA consultation with NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); further information 

is provided in Chapter 1.6.6. The NMFS Biological Opinion (BO); BOEM’s Non-Air Gun, 

High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys in North Atlantic right whale Critical Habitat, Seasonal 

Management Areas, and Dynamic Management Areas in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning 

Areas of the Outer Continental Shelf; and the FWS concurrence letter are provided in Appendix A. 

This Programmatic EIS provides incidental take estimates for species protected under the MMPA. 

Take under the MMPA can range from behavioral disturbance to mortality. The acoustic and impact

modeling conducted to develop these estimates is by its very nature complex and demands numerous 

specific details be identified and used during calculations (refer to Appendices D and E). However, it 

must be emphasized that each of these assumptions are purposely developed to be conservative and 

accumulate throughout the analysis (e.g., representative sound source is modeled at highest sound levels 

and always at maximum power and operation, sound levels received by an animal are calculated at 

highest levels, marine mammal density values used likely exceed actual densities, and models do not 

include the effect of all mitigations in reducing take estimates). Therefore, the results of the modeling 

predictions will overestimate take.

These conservatively modeled take estimates do not alone reflect BOEM’s determination of the 

impact to marine mammals. The impact assessment approach used by BOEM is described in detail in 

Chapter 4. It considers the modeled take estimates, the best available information on marine mammal 

distribution, current science assessing the potential effects of G&G surveys on marine mammals, and an 

evaluation of how employed mitigation can reduce these effects (recognizing that all mitigations cannot 

be effective 100% of the time). This assessment is then compared against the significance criteria

(described in Chapter 4.2.2.2.1) to identify an anticipated level of impact. Future site-specific actions 
1-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

proposed by operators will, as necessary, follow the MMPA procedures for issuance of an Incidental Take 

Authorization (ITA), which will again evaluate potential impacts.

1.3. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

1.3.1. Objectives

The objectives of this Programmatic EIS are to

• characterize potential future G&G activities in Federal waters and affected State 

waters on the Atlantic OCS (over the period from 2012 through 2020); 

• describe the proposed action; 

• identify and analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that could result from 

the proposed action; and

• evaluate mitigation measures that are practical and feasible to ensure impacts to the 

human and natural environments are minimized. 

1.3.2. Area of Interest

The Area of Interest (AOI) is the area in which the activities of the proposed action would take place 

and, therefore, the area of potential effect of the Programmatic EIS. The AOI includes the Mid- and 

South Atlantic OCS Planning Areas, as well as adjacent State waters (outside of estuaries) and waters 

beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending to 350 nautical miles (nmi) (648 kilometers [km]) 

from shore (Figure 1-1). For purposes of supporting the impact analysis, resources that migrate through 

the AOI and resources in adjacent areas, if they may be affected by the proposed action, are included.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) confers on every coastal nation the 

automatic right to a continental shelf out to 200 nmi (230 mi, 370 km). The U.S., like most countries, 

established its EEZ (declared in Proclamation No. 5030; Federal Register, 1983) to the 200-nmi

(370-km) limit. Article 76 of UNCLOS has provisions allowing a nation to claim authority over an area 

of the continental shelf beyond 200 nmi (370-km), referred to as the Extended Continental Shelf (ECS), if 

certain criteria are met. The U.S. ECS Task Force is currently collecting data at areas around the U.S. to 

define the limits of its ECS (U.S. ECS Task Force, 2010). The ECS is an important area, as coastal 

nations may exercise sovereign rights over the natural resources of their continental shelf, including the 

seabed and subsurface. These rights include control over minerals, petroleum, and sedentary organisms 

such as clams, crabs, and corals. (Note: The U.S has not yet ratified UNCLOS but recognizes it as a 

codification of international law.) 

For the purpose of this Programmatic EIS, the seaward limit of the AOI shall be defined as a line

350 nmi (648 km) from shore. Article 76 of UNCLOS provides two constraint lines for defining the limit 

of the ECS: the seaward limit of Federal jurisdiction may be set at the farthest of 200 nmi (370 km)

seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or, if the continental 

shelf can be shown to exceed 200 nmi (370 km), a distance not greater than a line 100 nmi (185 km) from 

the 2,500-meter (m) (8,202-foot [ft]) isobaths, or a line 350 nmi (648 km) from the baseline. There are 

six areas where the U.S. and possessions likely have ECSs, the Atlantic margin being one of them 

(U.S. ECS Task Force, 2010).

To ensure all potentially affected resources are addressed, the landward limit of the AOI has been 

established at the mean high water (MHW) line. The AOI boundary follows the shoreline along most of 

the coast but extends across the mouths of estuaries and bays as necessary. While State waters are not 

within the jurisdiction of BOEM, the AOI encompasses adjacent State waters for three reasons: (1) the 

acoustic energy introduced into the environment during G&G surveys could affect resources in State 

waters; (2) NMFS, which has jurisdiction and permitting authority in State waters, requires an assessment 

of potential impacts to resources under its jurisdiction; and (3) G&G activities under all three program

areas could include surveys in State waters that may be considered connected actions. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over such activities in State and Federal waters under 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 

COE has established a Nationwide Permit (NWP) (NWP 6 Survey Activities) to regulate G&G activities 

in State waters. Depending on location, State-issued permits may also be required (see Chapter 1.6.18). 
Introduction 1-7

1.3.3. Types of G&G Activities Analyzed

A variety of G&G techniques are used to characterize the shallow and deep structure of the shelf, 

slope, and deepwater ocean environments. Geological and geophysical surveys are conducted to 

(1) obtain data for hydrocarbon exploration and production; (2) aid in siting renewable energy structures; 

(3) locate potential marine mineral resources; (4) identify possible seafloor or shallow depth geologic 

hazards; and (5) locate potential archaeological resources and potential hard bottom habitats for 

avoidance.

Detailed descriptions of G&G techniques are provided in Chapter 3. The selection of a specific 

technique or suite of techniques is driven by data needs and the target of interest. The activities include 

the following:

• various types of deep penetration seismic airgun surveys used almost exclusively for 

oil and gas exploration and development;

• other types of surveys and sampling activities used only in support of oil and gas

exploration and development, including electromagnetic surveys, deep stratigraphic 

and shallow test drilling, geological and geochemical coring, and various remote 

sensing methods;

• high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys used in all three program areas to detect 

geohazards, archaeological resources, and certain types of benthic communities; and

• geological and geotechnical bottom sampling used in all three program areas to 

assess the suitability of seafloor sediments for supporting structures (e.g., platforms, 

pipelines, cables, wind turbines) or to evaluate the quantity and quality of sand for 

beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects.

Deep penetration seismic surveys, in which a survey vessel tows an array of airguns that emit acoustic 

energy pulses into the seafloor over long durations and over large areas, are the most extensive G&G

activities that would be conducted and are a primary focus for the analyses in this Programmatic EIS. 

These surveys would occur almost exclusively in support of oil and gas exploration and development and 

would be conducted within the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas (Figure 1-1). Geological and 

other geophysical activities (HRG surveys) in support of oil and gas exploration and development would 

also occur. The two planning areas collectively account for 79 percent of the AOI. Geological and 

geophysical activities in support of renewable energy development would consist mainly of HRG and 

geotechnical surveys in both Federal and State waters less than 40 m (131 ft) deep (USDOI, MMS, 

2007a); this area represents about 12 percent of the AOI. Geological and geophysical activities in support 

of marine minerals uses (e.g., sand and gravel mining) would consist mainly of non-airgun HRG and 

geotechnical surveys in both Federal and State waters less than 30 m (98 ft) deep; this area represents 

about 9 percent of the AOI. Geological and geophysical activities beyond the outer boundary of the two 

planning areas have not been determined but could include geophysical surveys in support of the 

U.S. ECS Project.

1.4. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.4.1. Background

The Secretary of the Interior oversees the OCS oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals

programs and is required to balance orderly resource development with protection of the human, marine, 

and coastal environments while simultaneously ensuring that the public receives an equitable return for 

these resources.

This NEPA evaluation was directed under the Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2010 

USDOI, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Within the USDOI, BOEM has been 

delegated responsibility for management of Federal resources on the OCS. There are three program areas 

within which G&G activities would be carried out: oil and gas (conventional resources); renewable 

energy resources; and marine minerals resources. Because potential resources in these program areas in 

the OCS Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas are currently not well known, this Programmatic EIS
1-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

provides an environmental analysis of potential G&G surveys and activities to support orderly 

development in these areas.

Oil and Gas: Federal jurisdiction over submerged lands seaward of State boundaries was established 

by the OCSLA of 1953, as amended (43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq. [2008]). The USDOI is required to 

manage the leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas and marine minerals 

resources on the Federal OCS. Certain G&G surveys are required before operators may lease Federal 

land, and after leasing for operators to determine sea bottom conditions; the physical extent or economic 

valuation of oil, gas, or minerals on their lease; efficient production from their leases; or completion of 

decommissioning activities.

Orderly development of the Mid- and South Atlantic may help reduce the Nation’s need for oil 

imports and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. Congress placed a no-lease moratorium on 

the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area in 1990 followed by one placed on the South Atlantic Planning Area in 

1991. All Atlantic planning areas have been subject to yearly moratoria extensions that have been 

included in the annual Interior and Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. On 

September 30, 2008, Congress let expire the USDOI appropriations measure that had annually extended 

the Atlantic moratoria. On July 14, 2008, President Bush opened all OCS planning areas for leasing and 

lifted an EO issued by President Clinton in June 1998 that had continued restrictions on leasing in 

Atlantic Planning Areas.

Oil serves as the feedstock for liquid hydrocarbon products, among them transportation fuels and 

various petrochemicals. Natural gas is generally considered an environmentally preferable alternative to 

oil to generate electricity or for residential and industrial heating, and is an important feedstock for 

manufacturing fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and packaging.

In 2011, the U.S. consumed 18.8 million barrels (bbl) of oil per day; net import (imports minus 

exports) of petroleum into the U.S. was 8.4 million bbl per day (U.S. Department of Energy [USDOE], 

2012). Of that total, 55 percent was produced domestically and 45 percent originated from foreign 

sources (USDOE, 2012). In 2011, the U.S. also consumed approximately 24.4 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of 

natural gas from all sources (USDOE, 2013). Almost 8 percent of U.S. natural gas resources were 

imported in 2011, mostly from Canada (USDOE, 2013). 

Renewable Energy: Federal jurisdiction for renewable energy facilities on the OCS was established 

by the EPAct of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The USDOI manages the leasing, site assessment, installation, and 

production of renewable energy on the Federal OCS. The results of certain G&G surveys are required to 

characterize sea bottom conditions before installing a renewable energy facility or to verify completion of 

decommissioning activities. A Final Programmatic EIS for the OCS renewable energy program was 

released in 2007 (USDOI, MMS, 2007a), and a Record of Decision (ROD) was published in 2008 

(Federal Register, 2008a). 

In 2009, the U.S. used 97,946 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electrical energy, 10,407 MWh of which 

were generated by non-hydroelectric renewable energy in the states along the seaboard of the Mid- and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas (USDOE, 2011). In 2011, the USDOI considered two to four wind facility 

projects in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas for renewable electrical energy on the OCS. In 

2010, the USDOE initiated a formal Offshore Wind Innovation and Demonstration (OSWinD) initiative 

to promote and accelerate responsible commercial offshore wind development in the U.S. (USDOE, 

2010). The OSWinD supports the development of a world-class offshore wind industry in the U.S. able 

to achieve 54 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind deployment at a cost of 7-9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) 

by the year 2030, with an interim target of 10 GW at 13 cents/kWh by 2020 (USDOE, 2010).

Marine Minerals: Federal jurisdiction over submerged lands seaward of State boundaries was 

established by the OCSLA of 1953 and included non-energy mineral resources. Since 1995, the U.S. has 

conveyed over 38 million cubic yards (yd3

) (29,052,900 cubic meters [m3]) of OCS sand and gravel for 

authorized projects in several states along the seaboard of the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas: 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and northern Florida. Sand has been identified offshore of 

Delaware, North Carolina, and Georgia, with proposals for conveyance in Delaware and North Carolina

(USDOI, BOEM, 2013).

1.4.2. Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed action is to gather state-of-the-practice data about the ocean bottom and 

subsurface. These data, collected through G&G surveys, would provide information about the location 
Introduction 1-9

and extent of oil and gas reserves, bottom conditions for oil and gas or renewable energy installations, and 

marine minerals off the Atlantic coast of the U.S. G&G data and information are required for business 

decisions in furtherance of prospecting for OCS oil and gas in an orderly manner, assessing sites for 

renewable energy facilities, or using marine mineral resources in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning 

Areas (Figure 1-1). The G&G surveys acquired during the period when Atlantic oil and gas leasing took 

place in the 1970’s and 1980’s have been eclipsed by newer instrumentation, technology, and data 

processing that make seismic data of that time period inferior for making business decisions. More 

up-to-date data would reduce risk involved with all leasing, drilling, and development on these OCS lands 

and help to evaluate the environmental impacts of future potential leasing, drilling, and development.

The need for the proposed action is to use the information obtained by the G&G surveys to make 

informed business decisions regarding oil and gas reserves, engineering decisions regarding the 

construction of renewable energy projects, and informed estimates regarding the composition and volume 

of marine mineral resources. This information would also be used to ensure the proper use and 

conservation of OCS energy resources and the receipt of fair market value for the leasing of public lands. 

The development of the Programmatic EIS enables Government agencies to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities that include conducting an environmental impact analysis, meeting listed species 

consultation requirements, and incorporating measures to protect benthic and archaeological resources. 

Further, the Programmatic EIS allows a programmatic analysis that can support consultation and 

authorization needs under other environmental requirements, e.g., ESA, MMPA, CZMA, National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and government-to-government consultations, as warranted, on the 

basis of future specific proposed survey applications and environmental analyses. 

1.5. COOPERATING AGENCIES

BOEM is the proponent in providing guidelines for implementing an exploration and development

program on the Atlantic OCS and the lead agency for the preparation of this Final Programmatic EIS. Per 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1508.5), a cooperating agency may be any Federal agency that has 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts expected from a proposal. 

An agency’s jurisdiction by law (40 CFR § 1508.15) refers to an agency’s authority to approve, veto, or 

finance all or part of a proposal. An agency’s special expertise (40 CFR § 1508.26) refers to its statutory 

responsibility, agency mission, or program experience. The responsibilities of a cooperating agency 

(40 CFR § 1501.6(b)) include early participation in the NEPA process; participation in the scoping 

process; developing information and preparing portions of the Programmatic EIS for which the 

cooperating agency has special expertise, at the request of the lead agency; and providing staff support to 

enhance the lead agency’s interdisciplinary capability. The lead and cooperating agencies execute a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) based on the summary of ground rules provided by BOEM. The 

MOA delineates the roles and responsibilities of each agency in accordance with CEQ’s January 30,

2002, Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies: Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the 

Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. It has been this Agency’s practice to 

invite interest in cooperating agency relationships in the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS that is 

published in the Federal Register. 

As part of the Rule Changes for Reorganization of Title 30 (see Chapter 1.6.1), several MOAs were 

developed between BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to 

delineate responsibilities and establish the working relationship between the two agencies to synchronize 

the environmental review and environmental enforcement process for authorizations required to conduct 

conventional energy and resources activities on the OCS. An Environmental and NEPA MOA dated 

October 3, 2011 (see Appendix K) was established to help both agencies minimize duplication of efforts, 

promote consistency in procedures and regulations, and resolve disputes. The stated purpose of the 

Environmental and NEPA MOA is that “BSEE will serve as a cooperating agency on BOEM NEPA 

documents. There is a clear expectation that serving as a cooperating agency where practicable will be 

the standard protocol for any BOEM NEPA analysis that BSEE may adopt for its decisions.”

NOAA requested to be a cooperating agency for the development of the Programmatic EIS on 

April 25, 2011. An MOA was executed between the two agencies on January 3, 2012. The nature and 

scope of the proposed action involving the use of acoustic sources and the potential impacts to marine 

resources under the jurisdiction of NMFS, particularly marine mammals and sensitive marine species, 
1-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

including those listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA, led to NMFS’s 

decision to participate as a cooperating agency. Therefore, in addition to the regulations and requirements 

discussed elsewhere in this document, this Programmatic EIS has been reviewed in accordance with 

NMFS environmental review procedures for implementing NEPA (U.S. Department of Commerce 

[USDOC], NOAA, 1999).

The FWS and the COE were contacted to gauge their interest in becoming cooperating agencies, but 

neither agency expressed an interest in doing so.

1.6. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Federal laws mandate the OCS leasing program (i.e., OCSLA) and the environmental review process 

(i.e., NEPA). The OCSLA establishes guidelines for exploration of minerals (which, as defined by the 

OCSLA, is the process of searching for minerals, including geophysical surveys where magnetic, gravity, 

seismic, or other systems are used to detect or imply the presence of such minerals) on the OCS. In 

addition, the OCSLA contains provisions regarding surveys (borrow area clearance, pre- and 

post-construction) required prior to or following the use of sand, gravel, and shell resources for shore 

protection, beach restoration, or coastal wetlands restoration projects. Section 388 of the EPAct of 2005, 

P.L. 109-58, expanded the USDOI’s authority to issue leases, easements, and rights-of-way on the OCS 

for activities that produce energy from sources other than oil and gas, i.e., alternative energy projects. All 

of these actions are subject to the environmental review process under NEPA.

Several Federal regulations establish specific consultation and coordination processes with Federal, 

State, and local agencies (i.e., CZMA, ESA, FCMA, NHPA, and MMPA). In addition, the OCS leasing 

process and all activities and operations on the OCS must comply with other Federal, State, and local 

laws and regulations. Table 1-1 lists the major Federal laws and regulations and EOs that apply to the 

three program areas: (1) oil and gas; (2) renewable energy; and (3) marine minerals (USDOI, MMS,

2010). The following are summaries of selected applicable Federal laws and regulations.

1.6.1. Rule Changes for Reorganization of Title 30: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

All regulatory citations in this Programmatic EIS are concordant with the regulation changes made 

following the effectiveness date of October 1, 2011, for the reorganization of BOEM and BSEE (Federal

Register, 2011a). 

On May 19, 2010, USDOI Secretary Salazar announced in Secretarial Order 3299 (USDOI, 2010a) 

that this Agency would be reorganized into two new bureaus within the USDOI, each reporting to the 

Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management. These bureaus would come to be known as 

BOEM and BSEE. The mission of these new agencies was announced by the Secretary (USDOI, 2010a). 

BOEM is to administer leasing and plans, environmental studies, NEPA analysis, resource evaluation, 

economic analysis, and the renewable energy and marine minerals programs. The mission of BSEE is to 

administer all field operations including permitting and research, inspections, research, offshore 

regulatory programs, oil spill response, and newly formed training and environmental compliance 

functions (Federal Register, 2011a). 

After the new organizations were announced on June 18, 2010 (USDOI, 2010b), the Secretary issued 

Secretarial Order 3302 that, for the interim, changed the name of the former MMS to Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). In the period between the Secretary’s 

announcement (USDOI, 2010b) and the beginning of Fiscal Year 2012 (October 1, 2011) BOEMRE 

planned for the reorganization and the separation of responsibilities under Title 30, Minerals Resources

that had pertained to the former MMS. Regulations administered by BSEE remain in Title 30 CFR 

Chapter II under this Agency name, regulations administered by BOEM were grouped into a new 

Title 30 CFR Chapter V under this Agency name.

An announcement (Federal Register, 2011a) promulgated a new rule that mapped the Title 30 

regulations under the authority of the two newly formed bureaus. The rule pertained solely to the 

organization and codification of existing rules and related technical changes necessitated by a division of 

one agency into two separate agencies and made no changes to the substantive legal rights, obligations, or 

interests of affected parties and therefore had no public comment period. A future proposed rulemaking 
Introduction 1-11

is planned for joint issue by BOEM and BSEE to address regulatory anomalies created by splitting the 

functions of one agency into two that will have a public comment period before finalization.

1.6.2. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

The OCSLA of 1953 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.), as amended, established Federal jurisdiction over 

submerged lands on the OCS seaward of State boundaries (which were defined in the Submerged Lands 

Act of 1953). The Act, as amended, provides requirements for implementing an OCS oil and gas 

exploration and development program. The basic goals of the Act include the following:

1. establish policies and procedures for managing the oil and natural gas resources of 

the OCS that are intended to result in expedited exploration and development of the 

OCS in order to achieve national economic and energy policy goals, assure national 

security, reduce dependence on foreign sources, and maintain a favorable balance of

payments in world trade;

2. preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources of the OCS in a manner 

that is consistent with the need (a) to make such resources available to meet the 

Nation’s energy needs as rapidly as possible; (b) to balance orderly resource 

development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments; (c) to 

ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and (d) to 

preserve and maintain free enterprise competition;

3. encourage development of new and improved technology for energy resource 

production, which will eliminate or minimize risk of damage to the human, marine, 

and coastal environments; and

4. ensure that affected States and local governments have timely access to information 

regarding OCS activities and opportunities to review, comment, and participate in 

policy and planning decisions.

The Secretary is responsible under the OCSLA for the administration of mineral exploration and 

development of the OCS. Within the USDOI, BOEM is charged with the responsibility of managing and 

regulating the development of OCS resources in accordance with the provisions of the OCSLA. BOEM 

operating regulations are under 30 CFR part 550 and part 551 for oil and gas, 30 CFR part 585 for 

renewable energy, and 30 CFR part 580 for minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur. Regulations shared 

between BOEM and BSEE are under 30 CFR part 251 and part 254.

The EPAct of 2005 amended Section 8 of the OCSLA to authorize the USDOI to grant leases, 

easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for the development and support of energy resources from 

sources other than oil and gas and to allow for alternate uses of existing facilities on the OCS. Under 

Section 8 of the OCSLA, BOEM also has jurisdiction over certain geophysical (e.g., seismic, side-scan 

sonar, bathymetric, magnetometer) surveying and geological (e.g., vibracoring, boring, grab sampling) 

sampling activities that occur in support of the exploration and development of energy and mineral 

resources on the OCS. BOEM has no jurisdiction of these activities in State waters.

Section 11(a)(1) of the OCSLA states that, “[A]ny 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 Act, and which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area.” Section 11(g) 

specifies that permits for geological explorations shall be issued only if the Secretary determines that 

“such exploration will not be unduly harmful to aquatic life in the area. . .” BOEM regulations at 

30 CFR § 551.6 state that permit holders for oil and gas 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.”

Section 20 of the OCSLA states that the Secretary shall “. . . conduct such additional studies to 

establish environmental information as he deems necessary and shall monitor the human, marine, and 

coastal environments of such area or region in a manner designed to provide time-series and data trend 

information which can be used for comparison with any previously collected data for the purpose of 

identifying any significant changes in the quality and productivity of such environments, for establishing 
1-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

trends in the area studied and monitored, and for designing experiments to identify the causes of such 

changes.” BOEM’s Regional Assessment Section is responsible for conducting analyses, such as this 

Final Programmatic EIS, to assess the environmental impacts of OCS Program activities, involve all 

stakeholders in the process, and inform the public.

1.6.3. National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA, signed into law on January 1, 1970, was the first major environmental law in the U.S. and 

established this country’s national environmental policies. Implementing NEPA policies occurs through 

what Congress called “the environmental impact assessment process.” NEPA requires all Federal 

agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to protection of the human environment and to 

ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may 

have an impact upon the environment.

In 1979, the CEQ established uniform guidelines for implementing the procedural provisions of 

NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify 

and assess reasonable alternatives to a proposed action that avoid or mitigate adverse effects of a given 

action upon the quality of the human environment. The USDOI regulations to implement NEPA can be 

found in 43 CFR part 46 (Federal Register, 2008b).

NEPA requires a detailed EIS be prepared for major Federal actions that may have a significant 

impact on the environment. The EIS shall fully discuss significant environmental impacts and inform 

decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives, and it must address any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between 

short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources involved in the proposed action. The NEPA requirement for analysis of major 

Federal actions is the underlying driver for the production of this Programmatic EIS. 

The Federal regulations discussed in the following sections establish specific consultation and 

coordination processes with Federal, State, and local agencies.

1.6.4. Executive Order 12114: Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal 

Actions

Issued on January 4, 1979, by President Jimmy Carter, EO 12114 directs Federal agencies to provide 

for informed decision-making for major Federal actions with effects that occur outside the 50 states, 

territories, and possessions of the U.S., including marine waters seaward of U.S. territorial seas, the global 

commons, the environment of a nonparticipating foreign nation, or effects to protected global resources. 

Global commons are defined as “geographical areas that are outside of the jurisdiction of any nation, and 

include the oceans outside territorial limits and Antarctica. Global commons do not include contiguous 

zones and fisheries zones of foreign nations” (32 CFR § 187.3).

An Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) is required when an action has the potential to 

significantly harm the environment of the global commons. The procedural requirements under 

EO 12114 largely mirror those of NEPA, except EO 12114 does not require scoping. For this action, the 

EIS and OEIS have been combined into one document, as permitted under NEPA and EO 12114, in order 

to reduce duplication. The majority of the AOI for this proposed action is within the EEZ, within the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas as currently defined, or is within an area under consideration for 

a U.S. ECS. 

1.6.5. Coastal Zone Management Act

The CZMA of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.) was enacted to develop a national Coastal 

Management Program (CMP) that comprehensively manages and balances competing uses of and impacts 

to any coastal use or resource. The national CMP is implemented by individual State CMPs in 

partnership with the Federal Government. The CZMA Federal consistency regulations require that 

Federal activities (i.e., OCS lease sales) be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of a State’s CMP. The Federal consistency regulations also require that other 

federally approved activities (e.g., activities requiring Federal permits, such as activities described in OCS 

plans) be consistent with the enforceable policies of a State’s federally approved CMP. The CZMA is 
Introduction 1-13

administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) within NOAA’s 

National Ocean Service (NOS). The NOS implementing regulations are found at 15 CFR part 930, with 

the latest revision published in Federal Register (2006a). 

The overall program objectives of the CZMA are to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, 

to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.” Thirty-three coastal States have 

programs to address the balance in competing land and water issues in the coastal zone. A State’s 

jurisdictional purview typically extends 3 nmi (5.6 km) offshore of the coast and coastal islands (Texas 

and the Gulf coast of Florida are the exceptions). Federal actions within these areas are evaluated under 

NEPA and are subject to additional State regulations when Federal sovereign immunity has been waived 

by Congress. Appendix B provides information about coastal zone management agencies in states 

adjacent to the AOI. In order to receive a permit or authorization from BOEM in any of the three 

program areas, an applicant’s proposed survey must be determined consistent with the enforceable 

policies of the State’s CMP. 

1.6.6. Endangered Species Act

The ESA, enacted in 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531), provides a program for the conservation of threatened 

and endangered plants and animals and the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA was designed to 

protect and recover critically imperiled species as a “consequence of economic growth and development 

untempered by adequate concern and conservation” and is administered by FWS and NMFS. The NMFS 

handles marine species, while FWS has responsibility over freshwater fishes and all other species. 

Species occurring in both habitats (e.g., sea turtles and certain fishes) are jointly managed. The ESA 

defines the “take” of a listed species as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, 

killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting to do these things to that species. Federal agencies 

may be allowed a limited take of species through interagency consultations with NMFS or FWS and by 

issuance of an Incidental Take Statement (ITS). 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. Federal agencies must consult with NMFS and FWS, 

under Section 7(a)(2), on activities that may affect a listed species. These interagency, or Section 7, 

consultations are designed to assist Federal agencies in fulfilling their duty to ensure Federal actions do 

not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 

Under Section 7, to initiate consultation, a Federal agency would submit a consultation package, 

usually referred to as a Biological Assessment (BA), to FWS and/or NMFS for proposed actions that may 

affect listed species or critical habitat. If a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be affected by a 

proposed Federal action, the Federal agency must provide FWS and NMFS with an evaluation regarding 

whether or not the effect on the listed species or critical habitat is likely to be adverse. After NMFS and 

FWS review the BA, they provide a determination regarding the nature of any effects on each listed 

species or critical habitat. For each species likely to be adversely affected (i.e., subject to take or adverse 

effect on critical habitat), formal consultation is required, ending with the agency issuing a BO containing 

the necessary and sufficient terms and conditions under which the action can proceed. Informal 

consultation is required for species not likely to be adversely affected and concludes with agency 

concurrence with the findings, including any additional measures mutually agreed upon as necessary and 

sufficient to minimize adverse impacts to listed species and/or designated critical habitat.

In the BA, which can be found in Appendix A, BOEM made a determination regarding the effect of 

the proposed action on listed species and their habitats. After reviewing the BA, NMFS and FWS 

provided their determinations regarding effects to listed species. As part of this consultation with NMFS, 

BOEM provided additional information regarding non-airgun HRG surveys that explained BOEM’s 

strategy to mitigate or avoid adverse impacts to North Atlantic right whales (NARW) in U.S. Seasonal 

Management Areas (SMA) and critical habitat. The additional information, determinations, a BO from

NMFS, and a Letter of Concurrence from FWS also can be found in Appendix A. 

Section 7(b)(4)(C) of the ESA provides that, if an endangered or threatened marine mammal is 

involved, the taking must first be authorized by Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. Accordingly, the 

programmatic BO and ITS issued by NMFS under ESA Section 7(b)(4)(C) does not exempt take of North 

Atlantic right, blue, fin, humpback, sei, and sperm whales. In order for these species to be exempted, an 

MMPA authorization to take those marine mammals is required. NMFS will reinitiate the programmatic 
1-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

ESA consultation as appropriate with any proposed issuance of a MMPA Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) and may exempt the take of these species at that time.

1.6.7. Marine Mammal Protection Act

The MMPA was enacted on October 21, 1972, and protects all marine mammals (USDOC, NMFS, 

2011a). The MMPA was passed by Congress based on the following findings and policies: some marine 

mammal species or stocks may be in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of human activities; 

these species or stocks must not be permitted to fall below their optimum sustainable population level 

(depleted); measures should be taken to replenish these species or stocks; there is inadequate knowledge 

of the ecology and population dynamics; and marine mammals have proven to be resources of great 

international significance.

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the “take” of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by 

U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into 

the U.S. The term “take,” as defined in the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine 

mammal or to attempt such activity. The MMPA defines harassment as any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance that has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A 

harassment) or disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of 

behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (Level B harassment). 

The MMPA provides a mechanism for allowing, upon request, the incidental (i.e., not intentional) 

taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other 

than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. In 1981, Congress amended the MMPA 

to provide for ITAs for maritime activities, provided NMFS found the takings would be of small numbers 

and have no more than a negligible impact on those marine mammal species not listed as depleted under 

the MMPA (i.e., not listed under the ESA) and not having an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence 

harvests of these species. These “incidental take” authorizations, also known as Letters of Authorization 

(LOA), require that regulations be promulgated and published in the Federal Register outlining 

(i) permissible methods and the specified geographical region of taking; (ii) the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat and on the availability of the 

species or stock for subsistence uses; and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting, including 

requirements for the independent peer-review of proposed monitoring plans where the proposed activity 

may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses. In 1986, Congress 

amended both the MMPA, under the incidental take program, and the ESA to authorize takings of 

depleted (and endangered or threatened) marine mammals, again provided the taking (lethal, injurious, or 

harassment) was small in number and had a negligible impact on marine mammals. In 1994, MMPA 

Section 101(a)(5) was amended to establish an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply 

for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, referred to as 

Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs). 

Authorization under the MMPA may be needed in areas where marine mammal species are likely to 

occur, the intended sound source is expected to be of sufficient levels to have the potential to harass 

marine mammals, and any potential effects cannot be reasonably eliminated or limited through mitigation. 

While this Programmatic EIS contains extensive information about the AOI relevant to an application for

an ITA, its review of G&G activities is programmatic in nature and therefore will not result in an 

application for an ITA under Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. To comply with the MMPA,

BOEM-issued approval for G&G activities will be conditional on the operator obtaining MMPA 

authorization (LOA or IHA), if necessary, from NMFS and/or FWS. BOEM cannot proceed with the 

processing of a permit application for G&G activities until a NEPA analysis is complete and the 

applicant/operator has secured all necessary approvals including an LOA or IHA from NMFS and/or 

FWS.

1.6.8. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens FCMA, P.L. 94-265, was enacted to address impacts to fisheries on the 

U.S. continental shelf. It established U.S. fishery management over fishes within the fishery conservation 

zone from the seaward boundary of the coastal States out to 200 nmi (370 km) (i.e., boundary of the 
Introduction 1-15

U.S. EEZ). The Magnuson-Stevens FCMA also established regulations for foreign fishing within the 

fishery conservation zone and issued national standards for fishery conservation and management to be 

applied by eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMC). Each Council is responsible for 

developing Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for domestic fisheries within its geographic jurisdiction. In 

1996, Congress enacted amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens FCMA known as the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act (SFA) (P.L. 104-297) to address substantially reduced fish stocks resulting from direct and 

indirect habitat loss.

The SFA requires that BOEM and other agencies consult with NMFS concerning actions that may 

adversely impact EFH. Essential Fish Habitat is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fishes

or invertebrates for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Areas designated as EFH contain 

habitat essential to the long-term survival and health of U.S. fisheries. Essential Fish Habitat for managed 

fisheries is described in the FMPs.

Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that might adversely affect EFH must 

consult with the Secretary of Commerce, through NMFS, regarding potential effects to EFH. To 

streamline the process, NMFS combines EFH consultations with existing environmental reviews required 

by other laws such as NEPA, and as a result most consultations are completed within the time frames for 

review of other documents. BOEM requested consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens FCMA in 

conjunction with this Programmatic EIS. The Programmatic EIS provides information that will be 

relevant and applicable to support future consultations on EFH for site-specific G&G actions.

NMFS has determined a Programmatic EFH Consultation is not an appropriate mechanism to 

evaluate EFH impacts of BOEM G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS based on information available. 

BOEM plans that each activity occurring under this proposed action will receive an environmental review 

including an EFH assessment. That is, after a G&G activity is requested and received by BOEM’s Office 

of Strategic Resources, Office of Environment will review the permit and ask for any additional 

information deemed necessary to analyze impacts of the specific activity and location to marine protected 

species, archaeological resources, biological features, and EFH. During that review, BOEM would 

prepare a site-specific NEPA analysis with the EFH assessment included as an appendix. After reviewing 

the EFH assessment, BOEM would then make the determination whether that specific activity and 

location would cause a significant adverse effect to fisheries and EFH and warrants a formal EFH 

consultation. If so, BOEM will consult with NMFS.

1.6.9. Clean Air Act

The OCSLA (43 U.S.C. § 1334[a][8]) requires the Secretary to promulgate and administer regulations 

that comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.) and to the extent that authorized activities significantly affect the air 

quality of any State. Under provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary and 

the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), established requirements to control air pollution in 

OCS areas of the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and parts of the Gulf of Mexico.

Outer Continental Shelf sources within 25 nmi (40.2 km) of the States’ seaward boundaries are 

subject to the same Federal and State requirements as sources located onshore. Outer Continental Shelf 

sources beyond 25 nmi of the States’ boundaries are subject to Federal requirements for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) promulgated pursuant to Part C of Title 1 of the CAAA. The CAAA also 

establish procedures to allow the USEPA Administrator to exempt any OCS source from a control 

technology requirement if it is technically infeasible or poses an unreasonable threat to health or safety.

BOEM air quality regulations (30 CFR part 550 subpart C) assess and control OCS emissions that 

may impact air quality in onshore areas. These regulations apply to exploration activities (which include

G&G surveys) under the oil and gas program. BOEM applies defined criteria to determine which OCS 

plans require an air quality review and performs an impact-based analysis on the selected plans to 

determine whether the emission source would potentially cause a significant onshore impact. If an 

emission source is determined to be significant and therefore requires air quality modeling, the

USEPA-preferred model (the steady-state Gaussian, Offshore and Coastal Dispersion model) should be 

used.

Because the review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not address

project-specific information regarding air quality issues, it will not result in a permit application under the 
1-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

CAA. Future, site-specific proposals will be reviewed by BOEM to ensure compliance with General 

Conformity provisions are met and that agreed-upon measures will avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential 

adverse effects.

1.6.10. Clean Water Act

The CWA is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The CWA 

establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Under the 

CWA, it is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters 

without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. All waste streams 

generated from offshore oil and gas activities are regulated by USEPA, primarily by general permits. 

USEPA may not issue a permit for a discharge into ocean waters unless the discharge complies with the 

guidelines established under Section 403(c) of the CWA. These guidelines are intended to prevent 

degradation of the marine environment and require an assessment of the effect of the proposed discharges 

on sensitive biological communities and aesthetic, recreational, and economic values.

Other sections of the CWA also apply to offshore activities. Section 404 of the CWA requires a COE 

permit for the discharge or deposition of dredged or fill material in all the waters of the U.S., including 

ocean areas and estuaries. Approval by the COE, with consultation from other Federal and State 

agencies, is also required for installing and maintaining pipelines and OCS seabed structures in coastal 

areas. Section 303 of the CWA provides for the establishment of water quality standards that identify a 

designated use for waters (e.g., fishing/swimming). States have adopted water quality standards for ocean 

waters within their jurisdiction (waters of the territorial sea extending out to 3 nmi). Operators would be 

required to obtain an NPDES permit from USEPA for any effluent discharges (including drilling fluids 

and cuttings) from a Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) well or shallow test well. 

COE’s Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program was developed to streamline the evaluation and approval 

process for certain types of activities that have only minimal impacts to the aquatic environment. Any 

applicant that intends to use an NWP must ensure that their proposed activity meets the terms, conditions, 

and any regional conditions of the NWP, and any additional coastal zone management or Section 401 

water quality requirements. Most G&G survey activities qualify for one of two NWPs. Nationwide 

Permit 5 covers the placement of scientific measurement devices such as staff gauges, tide gauges, water 

recording devices, water quality testing and improvement devices, and similar structures, applicable to 

certain G&G activities such as the temporary installation of meteorological buoys or other data collection 

devices. Nationwide Permit 6 addresses survey activities such as core sampling, seismic exploratory 

operations, plugging of seismic shot holes and other exploratory-type bore holes, exploratory trenching, 

soil surveys, sampling, and historic resources surveys. Most G&G survey activities would require an 

NWP 6, which is a type of general permit (U.S. Department of the Army [USDOA], COE, 2007). 

Drilling and discharge of excavated material from test wells for oil and gas exploration are not authorized 

by NWP 6 and would require a Section 404/Section 10 Permit, also called a standard permit. 

Because the review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not address 

project-specific information regarding water quality issues, it will not result in a permit application under 

the CWA. Future, site-specific proposals will be reviewed by BOEM to ensure CWA standards or permit 

requirements are met and that agreed-upon measures will avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse 

effects. Geological and geophysical surveys in State waters fall under the jurisdiction of the COE and 

would not be subject to BOEM review.

1.6.11. National Historic Preservation Act

The NHPA of 1966, as amended, established a program for the preservation of historic properties. 

Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR part 800), “Protection of Historic Properties,” as amended through 

2004, requires that Federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal, 

federally assisted, or federally licensed undertaking, prior to approval of the expenditure of funds or the 

issuance of a license, to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, 

structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), which administers Section 106, has 

issued regulations (36 CFR part 800) defining how Federal agencies are to meet the statutory 
Introduction 1-17

responsibilities. The head of a Federal agency shall afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to review 

and comment on the action.

An action has an effect on a historic property when that action has the potential to alter the 

characteristics of the property that led to its inclusion in the NRHP. The effects can include physical 

disturbance, noise, or visual effects. If an adverse effect on historic properties is found, BOEM would 

notify the ACHP, consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (THPO), and affected federally recognized tribal contacts and encourage the 

applicant to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects.

Historic properties (i.e., archaeological resources) on the OCS include historic shipwrecks, sunken 

aircrafts, lighthouses, and prehistoric archaeological sites that have become inundated as a result of the 

120-m (394-ft) rise in global sea level since the height of the last Ice Age (ca. 19,000 years ago). The 

OCS is not federally owned land, and the Federal Government has not claimed direct ownership of 

historic properties on the OCS; therefore, under Section 106 of the NHPA, only BOEM has the authority 

to ensure that their funded and permitted actions do not adversely affect significant historic properties. 

Beyond avoidance of adverse impacts, BOEM does not have the legal authority to manage the historic 

properties on the OCS.

BOEM generally does not formally consult under Section 106 of the NHPA for a Programmatic EIS

because of the broad scope of the proposed undertakings discussed in the Programmatic EIS, and the lack 

of a specific federal undertaking on which to consult. For those undertakings analyzed in the 

Programmatic EIS and not covered by an existing Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (see Chapter 

5.7.5), BOEM shall determine whether the proposed Federal action is an undertaking as defined in

36 CFR § 800.16(y) and, if so, whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on 

historic properties. If BOEM determines that an undertaking has the potential to cause effects on historic 

properties, BOEM will initiate the Section 106 process per 36 CFR part 800. 

1.6.12. Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712) is the primary legislation in 

the U.S. established to conserve migratory birds. It implements the U.S.’s commitment to four bilateral 

treaties, or conventions, for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. The MBTA prohibits the 

taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds unless permitted by regulation. The bird species 

protected by the MBTA appear in Federal Register (2010a). Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” (January 10, 2001) required that Federal agencies taking 

actions likely to negatively affect migratory bird populations enter into Memoranda of Understanding 

(MOU) with FWS. 

On June 4, 2009, this Agency entered into an MOU with FWS to comply with the EO (USDOI,

2009). The overall purpose of the MOU is to strengthen collaboration between BOEM, BSEE, and FWS. 

Included in the MOU is the direction to expand coverage in environmental reviews mandated by NEPA of 

the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern in furtherance of 

conservation of migratory bird populations.

The review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not address project-specific 

information regarding impacts to migratory birds. Future, site-specific proposals will be reviewed by 

BOEM to ensure MBTA standards are addressed in the manner outlined in the MOU. 

1.6.13. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes

Signed on July 19, 2010, by President Obama, EO 13547 established a national ocean policy and the 

National Ocean Council (Federal Register, 2010b). The Order establishes a national policy to ensure the 

protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and 

resources, enhance the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserve our maritime heritage, 

support sustainable uses and access, provide for adaptive management to enhance our understanding of 

and capacity to respond to climate change and ocean acidification, and coordinate with U.S. national 

security and foreign policy interests. Where BOEM actions affect the ocean, the Order requires BOEM to 

take such action as necessary to implement this policy, the stewardship principles, and national priority 

objectives adopted by the Order, and guidance from the National Ocean Council.
1-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Implementation of the guidelines presented in EO 13547 is still in the planning stages at BOEM and 

will occur in a three-stage process that will culminate with a final CMSP process. 

1.6.14. Rivers and Harbors Act

The RHA, enacted in 1899, was the first Federal water pollution act in the U.S. It focused on 

protecting navigation, protecting waters from pollution, and acted as a precursor to the CWA of 1972. 

Section 10 prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the U.S., that is, 

construction of various structures that hinder navigable capacity of any waters, without the approval of 

Congress. While the initial purpose of the act was to prevent obstructions to navigation, a 1959 Supreme 

Court decision interpreted obstruction to navigation to include water pollution. The Court found that 

anything which tends to destroy the navigable capacity of a navigable waterway is prohibited by the Act.

Section 10 is applicable for structures, installations, and other devices on the OCS seabed. Section 10 

is not applicable to most actions undertaken for exploration on the OCS, the exception being drilling and 

discharge of excavated material from test wells, as they fall under NWP 6 described in Chapter 1.6.10. 

G&G survey activities may qualify for NWP authorization under the following categories: NWP 5 for 

“Scientific Measurement Devices” and NWP 6 for “Survey Activities.” Because the review under this 

document is programmatic in nature and does not address project-specific information regarding impacts 

to navigable waters, it will not result in a permit application under the RHA. The COE is the only agency 

that has the authority to make a decision to issue a Section 10 permit, based on an applicant's submission 

of a COE permit application and COE’s decision that the proposed activity is not contrary to the public 

interest.

1.6.15. National Marine Sanctuaries Act

The NMSA (16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.) was enacted in 1972 and is the legislative mandate that 

governs NOAA’s ONMS and the National Marine Sanctuary System. Under the NMSA, the Secretary of 

Commerce is authorized to designate and manage areas of the marine environment as National Marine 

Sanctuaries (NMS). Such designation is based on attributes of special national significance, including 

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or 

aesthetic qualities. Day-to-day management of NMSs has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce 

to NOAA’s ONMS.

The primary mandate of the NMSA is resource protection. The NMSA provides several tools for 

protecting designated NMSs. The NMSA provides the authority to issue regulations for each sanctuary 

and the system as a whole. The ONMS regulations, codified at 15 CFR part 922, prohibit specific kinds 

of activities, describe and define the boundaries of the NMSs, and set up a system of permits to allow the 

conduct of certain types of activities. Permits are required for any action that includes activities otherwise

prohibited by sanctuary regulations. For more information on ONMS permits, see

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/permits/welcome.html. 

Section 304(d) of the NMSA requires that Federal agencies consult with ONMS for any Federal 

action internal or external to an NMS that is “likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary 

resource.” The purpose of the consultation is to prevent or minimize potential injury to any sanctuary 

resource by requiring assessment of the proposed Federal action before the initiation of any such action 

and allowing ONMS the opportunity to recommend alternatives that would protect sanctuary resources. 

To streamline the sanctuary consultation process, ONMS may combine the process with environmental 

reviews required by other laws, such as NEPA. Relevant sections of this Programmatic EIS will support 

the consultation process between BOEM and ONMS.

Because the review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not address 

project-specific information regarding potential impacts to sanctuaries, it will not result in review under 

ONMS regulations or consultation under NMSA at this time. Future, site-specific proposals will be 

reviewed by BOEM to ensure NMSA consultation standards or permit requirements are met and that 

agreed-upon measures will avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects. Where NMS resources 

may be affected through a site-specific request, BOEM will consult with the ONMS under the NMSA to 

develop site-specific stipulations (e.g., acoustic and drilling setbacks).
Introduction 1-19

1.6.16. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), enacted in 1972 and also referred to 

as the Ocean Dumping Act, generally prohibits (1) transportation of material from the United States for 

the purpose of ocean dumping; (2) transportation of material from anywhere for the purpose of ocean 

dumping by U.S. agencies or U.S.-flagged vessels; and (3) dumping of material transported from outside 

the United States into the U.S. territorial sea. A permit is required to deviate from these prohibitions.

Under the MPRSA, the standard for permit issuance is whether the dumping will “unreasonably 

degrade or endanger” human health, welfare, or the marine environment. USEPA is charged with 

developing ocean dumping criteria to be used in evaluating permit applications. MPRSA provisions that 

address marine sanctuaries are administered by NOAA. A reauthorization of Title III in 1992 resulted in 

the renaming of this section to the NMSA. 

Because the review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not address 

project-specific information regarding potential impacts to sanctuaries, it will not result in a permit 

application under the MPRSA. Future, site-specific proposals will be reviewed by BOEM to ensure 

MPRSA permit requirements are met and that agreed-upon measures will avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

potential adverse effects. BOEM is working with ONMS to develop specific stipulations for sanctuaries 

that inform applicants for BOEM exploration permits when sanctuary consultation or permits are required 

and what information is needed about the project at that time.

1.6.17. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Signed on November 6, 2000, by President Clinton, EO 13175 established regular and meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal 

implications, to strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes 

and reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes. Executive Order 13175 reaffirmed 

the Federal government’s commitment to a government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes, 

and directed Federal agencies to establish procedures to consult and collaborate with tribal governments 

when new agency regulations would have tribal implications. The United States has a unique legal 

relationship with Indian tribal governments and recognizes Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations 

under its protection. As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers 

over their members and territory. The United States works with Indian tribes on a government-togovernment basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, and 

Indian tribal treaty and other rights. Furthermore, the United States recognizes the right of Indian tribes 

to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination. BOEM respects Indian tribal 

self-government and sovereignty, honors tribal treaty and other rights, and strives to meet the 

responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 

tribal governments.

While there are no Indian Tribal government lands on the OCS in the Atlantic, BOEM does recognize 

that the proposed actions analyzed in the Programmatic EIS, as well as the potential impacts from these 

proposed actions, may be of interest to Indian tribes. In anticipation of interest by tribes concerning the 

possibility of future G&G activities in the Atlantic, BOEM is developing a strategy to communicate 

potential impacts from proposed actions and to provide opportunities for government-to-government

consultation.

Since implementation of EO 13175, the USDOI has established a Tribal Consultation Policy (per

Secretarial Order 3317). In accordance with the spirit and intent of these policies and directives, BOEM 

has reached out to federally recognized tribes regarding the content of this Programmatic EIS and 

information on G&G activities in general. This outreach and coordination is being done in preparation 

for formal consultation with affected tribes once site-specific requests and details are known. It is then at 

this site-specific level that BOEM will work with affected and interested tribes to identify agreed-upon 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects (either through government-togovernment consultation or through Section 106 of the NHPA). 
1-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

1.6.18. State Permitting

While State waters are not within the jurisdiction of BOEM, the AOI encompasses adjacent State 

waters for three reasons: (1) the energy introduced into the environment during G&G surveys could 

affect resources in State waters; (2) NMFS, which has jurisdiction and permitting authority in State 

waters, requires an assessment of potential impacts to resources under its jurisdiction; and (3) G&G 

activities under all three program areas could include surveys in both Federal and State waters considered 

connected actions. Depending on location, State-issued permits may be required.

Within State waters of Georgia, all G&G activities will require a State Revocable License for Use of 

Waterbottoms. A State Revocable License is permission from the State to use publicly owned lands lying 

below the ordinary high water mark. This permission is required for any activities, whether permanent or 

temporary, that would impact tidally influenced waters, salt marshes, intertidal areas, mud flats or tidal 

waterbottoms in Effingham, Long, Wayne, Brantley, Chatham, Glynn, Camden, McIntosh, Bryan, 

Liberty, and Charlton Counties (http://coastalgadnr.org/msp/ap/lic). Application for a Revocable License 

in Georgia is to be submitted jointly with the appropriate COE permit application. The Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Section serves as 

Georgia’s coordinating agency for marine mammals, sea turtles, and coastal and marine birds. The 

GADNR Coastal Resources Division, Marine Fisheries Section serves as Georgia's coordinating agency 

for commercial and recreational fisheries. For North Carolina, a Geophysical Exploration Permit is 

required from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources under General 

Statutes 113-378 to 113-415.

However, G&G survey activities that include bottom-disturbing activities (e.g., geotechnical surveys, 

bottom sampling) that occur within State waters will require State permits. A Maryland Tidal Wetlands 

License, pursuant to the State’s Tidal Wetlands Act, would likely be required for any survey activities 

involving disturbance to submerged lands within Maryland waters. According to the Virginia Marine 

Resources Commission (VMRC), encroachments in, on, or over State-owned submerged land within 

Virginia’s territorial sea associated with any infrastructure, such as pipelines, for projects on the OCS will 

require permits from the VMRC pursuant to Chapter 12 of Title 2B.2 of the Code of Virginia. The 

Subaqueous Minerals Management Plan, which is a part of the State Minerals Management Plan, would 

apply to G&G activities occurring in State-owned submerged lands. The VMRC authorizes and oversees 

mining, leasing, and extraction of minerals on State-owned submerged lands and grants permits for the 

use of such land use. Additionally, the Commonwealth of Virginia may require a Virginia Water 

Protection Permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality under 9 Virginia 

Administrative Code (V.A.C.) 25-660. A Critical Area and Wetland Permit is needed from the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control for these types of activities in the State waters 

of South Carolina. The State of Florida requires an Environmental Resource Permit under Rule 62-330, 

Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for 

bottom-disturbing activities. If a proposed survey meets the de minimis exemption, Chapter 373.406(6), 

Florida Statute, for activities that have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse 

impacts on water resources, it would be exempt from the need for an environmental resource permit. For 

the remaining state within the AOI, Delaware, no State permits other than the CZMA requirements would 

be required for G&G survey activities.

1.6.19. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c), enacted March 10, 1934, 

is intended to protect fish and wildlife when Federal actions result in the control or modification of a 

natural stream or body of water. The FWCA provides the basic authority for the involvement of the FWS 

in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development projects. The 

FWCA requires that all Federal agencies consult with the FWS, NMFS, and State wildlife agencies for 

activities that affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water. NEPA was originally 

proposed as an amendment to the FWCA but ultimately was enacted as an independent directive.
Introduction 1-21

1.6.20. Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection

Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection (Federal Register, 1998c), was signed by President 

Clinton on June 11, 1998, to preserve and protect the coral reef ecosystems of the United States. This EO 

acts in furtherance of the CWA, CZMA, Magnuson-Stevens FCMA, NEPA, and NMSA. All Federal 

agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems shall: (a) identify their actions that may 

affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems; (b) utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the 

conditions of such ecosystems; and (c) to the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they 

authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems (Federal Register, 1998). 

The Secretary of the Interior serves as a co-chair for the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force.

Because the review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not address 

project-specific information regarding impacts to coral reefs, it will not result in specific stipulations 

beyond those found in survey protocols (see Chapter 2). BOEM will require site-specific information 

regarding sensitive benthic communities (including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, 

and chemosynthetic communities) prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing 

activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures.

1.6.21. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas

Signed on May 26, 2000, by President Clinton, EO 13158 strengthened and expanded the Nation’s

system of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) (Federal Register, 2000a). Specifically, consistent with 

domestic and international law, the EO was to (a) strengthen the management, protection, and 

conservation of existing MPAs and establish new or expanded MPAs; (b) develop a scientifically based, 

comprehensive national system of MPAs representing diverse U.S. marine ecosystems and the Nation’s 

natural and cultural resources; and (c) avoid causing harm to MPAs through federally conducted, 

approved, or funded activities. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) (2011b) 

defines MPAs within its jurisdiction as a network of specific areas of marine environments reserved and 

managed for the primary purpose of aiding in the recovery of overfished stocks and to ensure the 

persistence of healthy fish stocks, fisheries, and associated habitats. Such areas may include naturally 

occurring or artificial bottom and water column habitats, and may include prohibition of harvest or

seasonal or permanent time periods to achieve desired fishery conservation and management goals.

Because the review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not address 

project-specific information regarding impacts to MPAs, it will not result in specific stipulations 

regarding MPAs beyond those found in survey protocols (see Chapter 2). BOEM will require 

site-specific information regarding sensitive benthic communities that might be found in MPAs 

(including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior 

to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures.

1.6.22. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

Signed on February 11, 1994, by President Clinton, EO 12898 (Federal Register, 1994a) required that 

each Federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations. The EO required that within 1 year each Federal 

agency develop an environmental justice strategy that identified and addressed disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

and low income populations. The CEQ has oversight of the Federal Government’s compliance with EO

12898. The CEQ guidance for implementation of EO 12898 in the context of NEPA (CEQ, 1997a) 

identifies a minority population as an affected area where more than 50 percent of the population belongs 

to a minority group or where the percentage presence of minority groups is meaningfully greater than in 

the general population.

Potential environmental justice communities have been identified in this Programmatic EIS (see

Chapter 4.2.13.1.4). Future environmental reviews of site-specific projects would be expected to 
1-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

identify individual low-income communities (such as fishing communities) and assess any 

disproportionate human health and environmental effects that these communities could face.

1.7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

The NEPA and CEQ regulations provide procedural guidance for the environmental review process. 

The primary steps in this Programmatic EIS process are identified in Figure 1-2. A detailed discussion of 

the NOI, scoping, and Draft Programmatic EIS for this proposed action is provided in Chapter 5. 

1.7.1. Scoping

Public participation is a primary tenet of the environmental review process. The first phase, scoping, 

is used to identify the scope and significance of important environmental issues related to the proposed 

action prior to the development of an impact statement. The process is also intended to identify and 

eliminate from further detailed study issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior 

environmental review or that do not fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed action. The scoping 

process is public and involves all interests—Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments; commercial 

interests; environmental groups; and the general public.

The scoping process begins with publication of an NOI in the Federal Register, stating the agency’s 

intent to prepare an EIS for a particular proposal and providing basic information about the scoping 

process. The NOI also provides a brief description of the proposed action and possible alternatives, 

describes the particular agency’s scoping process, including any meetings and how the public can get 

involved, and contains an agency point of contact to answer questions about the proposed action and the 

NEPA process.

The NOI announcing the preparation of this Programmatic EIS was published in the Federal Register 

on January 21, 2009 (Federal Register, 2009a). The comment period on the NOI closed on March 23,

2009; the Agency did not move forward on the Programmatic EIS at that time. During the first scoping 

period the agency received 17 comments by email, mostly from industry or non-governmental interest 

groups. On April 2, 2010, a Federal Register notice was published announcing the reopening of the 

public comment period for the Programmatic EIS and listing the dates, times, and locations of public 

scoping meetings (Federal Register, 2010c). Seven scoping meetings were held at cities along the coast 

adjacent to the AOI and in Houston. The purpose of the scoping meetings was to solicit comments from 

stakeholders on the scope of the Programmatic EIS, identify issues to be analyzed, and identify possible 

alternatives and mitigation measures. In addition to accepting oral and written comments at each public 

meeting, BOEM accepted written comments by mail and through a dedicated email address. The public 

comment period closed on May 17, 2010. During this second scoping period BOEM received a total of 

965 comments. The scope and content of this Programmatic EIS have been formulated to ensure that the 

issues and concerns expressed by stakeholders during the scoping process have been fully addressed.

1.7.2. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

The purpose of an EIS is to ensure the goals of NEPA are incorporated into the actions of the Federal 

Government. The EIS is a concise public document specifying environmental impacts from a proposed 

action for which a Federal agency is responsible while providing a full and objective discussion of 

potential significant environmental impacts.

The Draft Programmatic EIS was prepared by BOEM as lead agency and NOAA as a cooperating 

agency in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 1502.20) and NMFS 

procedures for implementing NEPA (USDOC, NOAA, 1999). The Draft Programmatic EIS evaluated a 

reasonable range of alternatives, utilizing information received during the public and agency scoping 

process. Following issuance of the Draft Programmatic EIS, BOEM, in accordance with 

30 CFR § 556.26, opened a 94-day public comment period (Chapter 5.6), and public hearings to solicit 

comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS were held in eight locations (Chapter 5.5). An announcement 

of the dates, times, and locations of the public hearings was included in the Notice of Availability (NOA)

for the Draft Programmatic EIS. A copy of the public hearing notice was included with the Draft 

Programmatic EIS that was mailed to the parties listed in Chapter 5 of the Draft Programmatic EIS, 
Introduction 1-23

posted on BOEM’s Internet website, and published in local newspapers. The hearings provided BOEM 

with information from interested parties to help in the evaluation of alternatives.

1.7.3. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

When the public comment period ended, all comments were reviewed and responses to each were 

developed. This Final Programmatic EIS has been prepared, incorporating changes resulting from 

comments. All comments and corresponding responses can be found in Appendix L, and a discussion of 

the changes made to the EIS can be found in Chapter 5.6. The Final Programmatic EIS has been

distributed to the public.

1.7.4. Record of Decision

The environmental review process ends following a 30-day “cooling-off period” after release of the 

Final Programmatic EIS with issuance of a ROD. The ROD will state the decision of the agency; 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.

1.7.5. Subsequent Actions Required Before Permits or Authorizations May Be 

Issued

The completion of this Programmatic EIS is a necessary step prior to large-scale G&G work being 

carried out within the AOI, but completion by itself is not sufficient for BOEM to authorize this work. 

While this Programmatic EIS contains extensive information about resources and impacts in the AOI 

relevant to issuing a G&G permit, there are important aspects of a NEPA evaluation that a programmatic 

evaluation cannot provide because important site-specific attributes are not considered.

Before a site-specific evaluation could begin, permit applicants to BOEM’s Oil and Gas Program 

would be required to resubmit their applications using new BOEM forms. Once issued, a permit may be 

valid for up to 1 year (permit is valid for 2 months, with a maximum of five extensions granted). 

Therefore, the applicant needs to carefully plan the proposed work to include what can be accomplished 

within that period. A site-specific evaluation, under NEPA for proposed oil and gas G&G exploration is 

necessary before BOEM issues any G&G permit application. A NEPA evaluation is required for 

exploration under 30 CFR part 551 (prelease) for the G&G authorization of exploration activities for oil, 

gas, and sulphur and prospecting under 30 CFR part 580 for minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur. 

With respect to 30 CFR part 551, an EA may be developed for one permit application or multiple 

applications. Post-lease G&G surveys conducted under 30 CFR part 550 do not require survey-specific 

G&G permits because these activities are regulated under the lease. A permit and separate NEPA 

evaluation would be required if a proposed survey includes acreage beyond the confines of the operator’s 

lease(s) or right-of-way or is conducted by a third party not affiliated with the lease.

Site-specific NEPA evaluations would also be conducted for G&G activities authorized by BOEM for 

the renewable energy program (30 CFR part 585) and the marine minerals program (Section 11, OCSLA 

and Section 8(k) of OCSLA). NEPA evaluations would be prepared independently for renewable 

development activities. NEPA evaluations specific to a marine minerals project would be prepared 

independently for the authorization to use OCS resources or BOEM would review and adopt the Federal 

Agency Proponent’s NEPA documentation, depending on the activity proposed. 

An important aspect for BOEM’s control and administration of activity on the OCS, such as 

permitting and authorizations, would be a judicious review of existing guidance to oil and gas operators in 

BOEM/BSEE’s Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) program, conditions of approval, and best 

management practices. Extant guidance for the Gulf of Mexico Regional Office was developed for the 

Gulf of Mexico and has the benefit of a long period of use and monitoring. The types of G&G tools and 

techniques deployed in the Gulf of Mexico would be used in the Mid- and South Atlantic. The Atlantic, 

however, is a different geologic and geographic basin inhabited by different species of wildlife. Such 

guidance for operating conditions and mitigation applied in the Gulf of Mexico would need to be 

reviewed for appropriateness in the Atlantic. This programmatic evaluation points out that the applicable 

NTL guidance in the Gulf of Mexico is illustrative of the type of mitigations expected in the Atlantic; we 
1-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

have not yet determined if it can be applied in the Atlantic exactly as it is in the Gulf of Mexico. 

BOEM’s Renewable Energy Program does provide survey guidance for renewable energy lessees for 

Atlantic leaseholds (http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Regulatory-Information/Index.

aspx#Notices_to_Lessees,_Operators_and_Applicants). 

Depending on the type of G&G work proposed, consultations required by law (Chapter 1.6) would 

be carried out as BOEM prepares a NEPA document for the issuance of a permit(s). BOEM would not 

issue a permit until necessary consultations are complete. The consultations identified below would be 

typical but others may also be required.

CZMA Consistency: Before exploration or prospecting activities are conducted on OCS lands, or on 

lands under lease to a third party, such work must be “consistent” with enforceable policies under an 

CZMA affected State’s CMP (15 CFR part 930 subpart D; Consistency for Activities Requiring a Federal 

License or Permit). Under subpart D (the applicable subpart for OCS permits), the applicant sends the − 

consistency certification and necessary data and information to BOEM and the CZMA State’s CMP. The 

Marine Minerals Program may follow subpart C or subpart D provisions depending on whether a G&G

survey is exploration (Section 11) or on lease (Section 8). The Renewable Energy Program will not 

follow Subpart D provisions if G&G is authorized through lease issuance. Table 1-2 summarizes the 

enforceable policies for the states along the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas with respect to G&G 

activities in the three program areas. NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management may 

approve a State’s request to review an unlisted activity on a site-specific basis (15 CFR § 930.54) if not 

identified as an enforceable policy in the CMP. BOEM would not approve a G&G permit application 

unless the CZMA State’s CMP has concurred that such work is consistent with the enforceable policies of 

the State’s CMP. Most states that abut the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning areas have not identified 

geographic location descriptions for consultations between adjacent States or specific enforceable policies 

that would pertain to G&G activities (15 CFR part 930).

This Programmatic EIS does not authorize any lease sales or issue a permit or authorization for G&G

activities or approve any OCS plan, and therefore a CZMA consistency determination and consistency 

certification is not required. For CZMA purposes, this Programmatic EIS provides the framework for 

subsequent environmental documents and consistency determinations that will be required for future 

site-specific actions. In order to receive a permit from BOEM, an applicant’s proposed survey must be 

determined to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the 

CZMA State’s CMP. 

ESA Consultation: Under the ESA, NMFS and FWS (the “Services”) share jurisdiction over 

ESA-listed species and ESA-designated critical habitat as described in the BA found in Appendix A of 

this Programmatic EIS. The programmatic ESA consultation completed in conjunction with this 

Programmatic EIS outlines any additional consultations or other actions required at the individual permit 

level. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that “[e]ach Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with 

the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such 

agency...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is 

determined...to be critical.” As stated above, in the context of the actions analyzed in this Programmatic 

EIS, BOEM and BSEE have consulted with NMFS and FWS as required by the ESA. Informal 

consultation with FWS resulted in a concurrence that the proposed action would have no effect on, or 

would not be likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under FWS 

jurisdiction (Appendix A). BOEM conducted a formal consultation with NMFS. As part of the ESA 

consultation process, as a matter of policy, the Services require that an ITS be included in all formal 

consultations. An ITS is included in the BO issued by NMFS. While consultation has been completed, it 

may be reinitiated for the following reasons: (1) the amount of authorized incidental take is exceeded; 

(2) new information becomes available; (3) the agency action is modified; or (4) a new species or new 

critical habitat is designated. BOEM would also contact NMFS and FWS on a site-specific request that 

contains any activities not already considered in the programmatic consultation.

Section 7(b)(4)(C) of the ESA provides that, if an endangered or threatened marine mammal is 

involved, the taking must first be authorized by Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. Accordingly, the 

programmatic BO and ITS issued by NMFS under ESA Section 7(b)(4)(c) does not exempt take of North 

Atlantic right, blue, fin, humpback, sei, and sperm whales. In order for these species to be exempted, an 

MMPA authorization to take those marine mammals is required. NMFS will reinitiate the programmatic 
Introduction 1-25

ESA consultation as appropriate with any proposed issuance of an MMPA IHA and may exempt the take 

of these species at that time.

MMPA Authorization: Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA provides a mechanism for allowing, upon 

request, the incidental (i.e., not intentional) taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. 

To comply with the MMPA and ESA, any issued BOEM approval for G&G activities will be conditional 

on the operator obtaining an MMPA authorization, where needed, from NMFS and/or FWS prior to 

commencing activities under a BOEM authorization. For the MMPA, the permittee must work directly 

with NMFS and/or FWS to obtain any necessary MMPA authorization and provide evidence of this 

authorization to BOEM. BOEM will then coordinate with NMFS and/or FWS to ensure ESA ITS 

requirements for marine mammals have been met. For marine mammals in the AOI, NMFS has 

jurisdiction over cetaceans and pinnipeds, while FWS’s jurisdiction extends to manatees. Information on 

how to apply for an MMPA authorization can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental.htm. For either the ESA or MMPA authorizations, the mitigations that can be applied by FWS 

and NMFS are not limited to the mitigations identified for the alternatives framed for this Programmatic 

EIS, or to how they are defined in it. To comply with the MMPA, BOEM-issued approval for G&G 

activities will require the operator to obtain an MMPA authorization (LOA or IHA), if necessary, from 

NMFS and/or FWS. BOEM cannot proceed with the processing of an authorization for G&G activities 

until a NEPA analysis is complete and the applicant/operator has secured all necessary approvals, 

including an LOA or IHA from NMFS and/or FWS.

EFH Consultation: Per NMFS’s request, EFH consultation will not occur at the programmatic level 

for G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS. Each activity that occurs under the proposed action addressed in 

this Programmatic EIS would receive a NEPA environmental review including an EFH assessment at the 

site-specific level. BOEM will review survey plans and ask for any additional information deemed 

necessary to analyze impacts of the specific activity and location to marine protected species, 

archaeological resources, biological features, and EFH. During the plan review, BOEM will prepare a 

NEPA evaluation with the EFH assessment as an appendix. After reviewing the NEPA EFH assessment, 

BOEM will then make a determination whether that specific activity and location would cause a 

significant adverse effect to fisheries and EFH and if it warrants a formal EFH consultation with NMFS.

Government-to-Government Consultation: In the spirit and intent of EO 13175, Secretarial 

Order 3317 and USDOI Tribal Consultation Policy, BOEM has already begun outreach and coordination 

with potentially affected federally recognized tribes. This has been done to alert the tribes regarding this 

programmatic analysis, provide more information about G&G activities under the proposed action, and 

seek tribal interest in consulting on site-specific actions. Where a tribe expresses interest, BOEM intends 

to conduct formal government-to-government consultation at the site-specific level.

NHPA Consultation: If the proposed G&G work involves bottom-disturbing activity, BOEM will 

initiate the Section 106 process as required by the NHPA and its implementing regulations 

(36 CFR part 800). As part of the Section 106 process, BOEM will involve consulting parties, which will 

include the ACHP, SHPOs, THPOs, other representatives of affected federally recognized tribes, and the 

public. Through consultation, BOEM will determine the area of potential effect and the level of 

archaeological survey that constitutes a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate 

identification of historic properties. At a minimum, BOEM may require an archaeological and shallows 

hazard survey to examine bottom conditions as part of the NEPA evaluation. Upon examination of the 

reports and data specified by these surveys and in consultation with parties identified through the 

Section 106 process, BOEM will determine if there are indications of historic properties (prehistoric or 

historic archaeological resources) within the area of potential effect that may be affected by the proposed 

actions. BOEM, in consultation with the ACHP, SHPO, THPO, other tribal representatives, and other 

consulting parties, has authority under Section 106 of the NHPA to develop and evaluate alternatives or 

modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to these potential 

historic properties. Setbacks from suspected resources or requests for further examination by an applicant 

could result from the NHPA and NEPA evaluation as mitigation. 

NMSA Consultation: The review under this document is programmatic in nature and does not 

address project-specific information regarding potential impacts to sanctuaries, therefore it will not result 

in site-specific permit applications and review under ONMS regulations at this time. Future, site-specific 

proposals will be reviewed by BOEM to ensure NMSA consultation standards or permit requirements are 
1-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

met and that agreed-upon measures will avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects. If the 

proposed G&G work involves bottom-disturbing activity in proximity to an NMS, archaeological and 

shallow hazard surveys would be required to examine bottom conditions as part of the NEPA evaluation. 

Further, if a survey vessel(s) proposes to operate in proximity to an NMS, then BOEM will consult with 

NOAA to determine whether any additional mitigation (e.g., setbacks from NMS boundaries) needs to be 

applied to further protect NMS resources. BOEM is working with ONMS to develop specific stipulations 

for sanctuaries that inform applicants for BOEM exploration permits when sanctuary consultation or 

permits are required and what information is needed about the project at that time. These coordination 

activities will include a discussion on notification of divers and boaters in the region, beyond the Notice 

to Mariners, discussion of set-back from the Monitor and Gray’s Reef NMSs, and environmental 

monitoring and enforcement efforts. In addition, BOEM will coordinate with FWS for any G&G 

activities proximate to National Wildlife Refuges.

Department of Defense (DoD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Coordination: In addition to the general guidance for military and NASA coordination discussed in 

Chapter 2.1.2.5 and further expanded on in Appendix C, Section 3.1.5, BOEM and DoD have 

established two working groups to ensure G&G activities would be coordinated with the DoD as 

site-specific G&G activities are proposed. During the revision of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the DoD 

notified BOEM that within the boundaries of the AOI there are ongoing DoD operations and missions. 

The Working Groups have been formed to provide a structured process by which DoD and BOEM can 

develop measures to minimize conflicts between BOEM permitted and authorized G&G surveys and DoD 

operations. One of the interagency working groups will address spatial conflicts of proposed BOEM 

seismic and related G&G permitting activities with DoD operations in the Mid- and South Atlantic. The 

second interagency working group will develop coordination and reporting requirements associated with 

the use and requirements of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) systems in South and Mid-Atlantic 

Planning Areas for oil, gas, and renewable energy surveys and in the North Atlantic Planning Area for 

renewable energy surveys.

1.7.6 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management will be applied to any alternative selected and utilized to determine the 

effectiveness of individual mitigations over time. Adaptive management is a flexible decision-making 

process that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other 

events become better understood. “Other events” include additions to the body of knowledge for where 

and when species use the ocean and how the impacting factors from BOEM’s potentially permitted 

actions affect them. Chapter 1.7.7 identifies a number of potential sources for future information.

The National Research Council (NRC) defines adaptive management as follows:

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision-making that 

can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and 

other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both 

advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an 

iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of 

natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a 

‘trial and error’ process, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced 

benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and 

economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions among 

stakeholders. (USDOI Adaptive Management Technical Guide; Williams et al., 2009a). 

BOEM, as the decision maker, in conjunction with interested stakeholders, will begin to develop a 

more specific and detailed adaptive management process to include the following: 

1. framing of objectives;

2. analytical tools;

3. methods to achieve those objectives;
Introduction 1-27

4. management options and strategies; and

5. an overall structured decision-making approach. 

The goal will be to seek the most appropriate way to manage resources, minimize impacts, and allow 

for the activity to take place while remaining flexible and transparent. BOEM’s adaptive management

approach begins with the preparation of a “programmatic” EIS as a baseline that broadly covers the likely 

range of protective measures that may be taken to avoid or minimize impacts. Later, any site-specific 

NEPA compliance needed can be adjusted for subsequent shifts in how protective measures are fielded as 

it “tiers” off the initial programmatic EIS. The programmatic evaluation, therefore, needs to ensure that a 

robust collection of potential protective measures have been treated in the analysis of alternatives, an 

approach endorsed by the technical guide (Williams et al., 2009a). 

The outline for how BOEM and BSEE intend to realize adaptive management in the Atlantic AOI 

follows the USDOI technical guide’s philosophy and meets the measures of success defined in it: (1)

preparation of an EIS is a public process; (2) BOEM’s management goals are to reduce and avoid impacts 

from OCS activities approved by BOEM while still allowing the goals and intent of the OCSLA for 

exploration and development of the OCS; (3) results from monitoring (BOEM/BSEE NTL-required 

operator reports) and assessment (BOEM Environmental Studies Program) are inputs to adjust and 

improve management decisions for the protective measure available and assigned as conditions of permit 

approval; and (4) implementation remains consistent with applicable laws.

Through the adaptive management approach, changes to mitigation requirements, either increases or 

decreases, could occur in the development of a programmatic management plan or could occur at the sitespecific NEPA level. Any such changes originating from either a programmatic plan or a site-specific 

NEPA level analysis would occur only after BOEM considers the best available information. Further, 

BOEM emphasizes that any changes to mitigation measures at either a programmatic level or at the sitespecific review phase may require coordination under other agency authorities (e.g., with the Terms and 

Conditions under the existing ESA Section 7 consultations with NMFS and FWS).

Adaptive management is a learning-based process. By monitoring the mitigations associated with the 

management decisions that may follow for completion of G&G activities, an improved understanding 

about which actions and mitigations work and why will be gained. In other words, a feedback loop will 

be created between BOEM and BSEE so that a better understanding of how a resource system works is 

gained, thus promoting improved subsequent decision-making allowing for management objectives to be 

achieved.

Once a better understanding of the effectiveness of assigned mitigations is achieved, BOEM, as the 

decision-maker, will be able to better assess and adjust future management decisions and design more 

effective mitigations if warranted. This assessment and adjustment may take place by comparing 

monitoring data and using models to predict outcomes with the comparative results of these analyses

feeding back into the decision-making process to produce more effective future decisions. BOEM 

understands and acknowledges that there are many uncertainties regarding ecosystems and that actual and 

expected results of the mitigation measures associated with the Alternatives in this document can vary 

greatly. By creating and applying an adaptive management process, however, aspects of mitigation and 

management that are not working can be isolated and adjustments can be made to allow for improved 

management of the activity and the resource.

BOEM also understands that successful adaptive management of a program and activities within that 

program requires stakeholder participation. Participation and input from interested parties such as other 

Federal, State, and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations, industry, Tribal governments, and the 

public is key to designing and creating an adaptive management process that will be successful at all 

stages of its iterative course. This, in turn, will result in the goal of protecting resources of concern while 

allowing for the program and its activities to continue.

There are many and varied types of new information BOEM will use to inform its adaptive 

management process. The ability to analyze the new information and adjust measures based on this 

analysis will then be built into the site-specific NEPA and other internal and external environmental 

review processes. The question then becomes what types of additional measures may be considered. 

Additional measures would need to be analyzed in terms of effectiveness in mitigating the intended effect 

as well as practicability in being implemented in the field. Although BOEM cannot determine the full 

suite of potential measures in advance of the site-specific analysis or completion of an adaptive 
1-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

management plan, the list below provides some examples. Again, BOEM does not consider this list as 

exhaustive (as new ideas and measures are likely to emerge) and is also not implying that any or all of 

them would certainly be implemented.

• Additional time-area closures (potentially related to biologically important areas or 

multi-use conflicts); 

• Revisions to time-area closure locations or areas (potentially related to biologically 

important areas); 

• Limits to seismic surveys and/or additional separation requirements – spatially or 

temporally (e.g., larger or smaller separation distances between concurrent surveys 

operating in same acoustical framework or restrictions in number of seismic surveys 

operating in a specific geographic location); 

• Consolidation of surveys in a specified geographic area to achieve multiple user 

information needs while limiting overall noise; 

• Use of other alternative seismic technologies such as vibroseis, airgun silencers, 

bubble curtains (as technology develops), or requiring existing but less impactful 

acoustic sources in biologically important areas;

• Buffer zones around critical habitat and biological areas of importance; or

• Expanded (or reduced) acoustic exclusion zones (based on field verification and 

additional sound source verification). 

As an example (and for illustrative purposes only), an applicant may request to conduct a seismic

survey using a large airgun array in an area that the latest NOAA Cetacean Density and Distribution 

Mapping Group (CetMap) information indicates is biologically important to cetaceans. BOEM would 

analyze the potential for effects and consider alternatives that would limit this potential in a site-specific 

NEPA analysis (e.g., time closures during periods of highest density, required use of quieter 

technologies). Another example may involve new information that indicates there is a multiple-use 

conflict between the operation times of this same type of survey and another ocean activity (e.g., specific, 

time-sensitive fishing period or military activity period). In this case, BOEM would analyze site-specific 

NEPA alternatives that consider expanded separation distances between activities or even avoidance of an 

area until the conflict passes or having the survey start elsewhere in its survey plan and return once the 

conflict has passed. Another example could include new information gained through government-togovernment consultations with federally recognized tribes on site-specific requests that lead to additional 

mitigation to avoid impacts to important cultural resources. Again, these are just examples and any 

resulting measures are dependent on the analysis of the best available information at the time of the 

subsequent NEPA analysis.

1.7.7. New Information

BOEM is currently following or directly involved with these areas of information development that 

will be relevant to the evaluation of future permit and authorization applications as well as to the adaptive 

management process: 

NOAA CetMap and CetSound Project: The CetMap and the Underwater Sound Field Mapping 

Group (CetSound) were convened starting in 2011 with a stakeholder symposium held in 2012. NOAA 

led these efforts and was supported by BOEM and the U.S. Department of the Navy (USDON). The 

objectives of the CetMap effort were to create regional cetacean density and distribution maps that are 

time- and species-specific, using survey data and models that estimate density using predictive 

environmental factors. This information will also identify known areas of specific importance of 

cetaceans, such as reproductive and feeding areas, migratory routes and areas in which small or resident 

populations are concentrated. CetSound focused on creating mapping methods to depict the temporal, 

spatial, and spectral characteristics of underwater noise. The CetMap and CetSound data and products

relevant to the Atlantic OCS were not available prior to the finalization of this Programmatic EIS (see 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/cetsound/). BOEM will use the CetMap information, as appropriate, for 

future G&G exploration permit reviews when the new CetMap cetacean density data and noise modeling 

from the Underwater Sound Field Mapping Working Group (SoundMap) become available.
Introduction 1-29

BOEM-Funded Environmental Studies: BOEM is also working with NOAA and other 

organizations on two programs to improve biological information on protected species in the 

U.S. Atlantic. They are (1) the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species – an effort to 

collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the seasonal distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals, marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic 

Ocean waters; and (2) the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre – an integrated marine information system that 

provides legal, physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic information system 

(GIS) framework. BOEM continues to consider other opportunities to improve knowledge of the 

biological baseline as well as opportunities to develop a long-term monitoring program during individual, 

site-specific analyses (see http://www.boem.gov/ATLStudies/). 

Designations of Species and Protected Areas or Identified Areas of Biological Importance: 

BOEM will monitor within the AOI for any new information about existing and new designations of 

species (e.g., through the ESA), protected areas (e.g., through the ESA, the NMSA) or other areas 

identified to contain particularly biologically important habitat. For example, in March and July 2013, the 

FWS and NMFS proposed terrestrial (i.e., nesting beaches) and marine critical habitat designations, 

respectively, for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of loggerhead sea 

turtle. This proposed designation includes 36 marine areas consisting of a combination of four critical 

habitat types: nearshore reproductive habitats, winter areas, breeding areas, and migratory corridors (see

Appendix M for more detail). The final critical habitat designation for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean 

DPS of loggerhead sea turtle was not final as of the date of publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. 

Other examples might include additional site-specific requirements for acoustic setbacks from a 

designated NMS or time-area closures for biologically important areas. It might also include additional 

protective measures to protect for certain events, such as the current Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for 

bottlenose dolphins in the Mid-Atlantic (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/

midatldolphins2013.html). Again, as with the other types of information described above, BOEM will 

fold this information into its site-specific analyses and adaptive management framework. 

NMFS Acoustic Criteria: At present, NMFS specifies that marine mammals exposed to pulsed 

sounds with received levels exceeding 180 or 190 decibels referenced to 1 microPascal (root mean 

square) (dB re 1 μPa [rms]) for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, are considered to exceed Level A 

(Injury) levels. NMFS also specifies that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms) are considered to exceed Level B (Behavioral Harassment) criteria. Over the past several 

years, NMFS has been working to develop new acoustic criteria.

In November 2012, NMFS informed BOEM about their plan to update acoustic criteria for injury (for

all sources) and behavioral harassment criteria (for seismic surveys using airguns). Subsequent 

discussions with NMFS held in December 2012 outlined that the updated acoustic criteria will be 

taxa-specific and source- or activity- specific. In March 2013, NMFS released a Draft Supplemental EIS 

on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/eis/arctic.htm), which contained very brief and limited information on NMFS’s plans to update 

the acoustic criteria. Further, in this Supplemental Draft EIS, NMFS stated that the “acoustic criteria 

process will (separate from this EIS process) include both a public and external peer review process” and 

that NMFS was “still in the internal review process.” In late September 2013, after an external peer 

review, NMFS provided a draft version of the new criteria for a Federal agency review and comment 

period. This document outlined new Level A criteria for all sources and new Level B criteria for seismic 

surveys (mainly airguns). BOEM provided comments on this draft version of the criteria, including 

noting additional information BOEM needed to evaluate the methodology. Further, this version did not 

contain NMFS’s plan for implementing any new criteria.

As of the publication of this Final Programmatic EIS, the criteria still remain in draft form. BOEM 

continues to provide NMFS with comments as requested. However, analysis of the criteria within this 

Final EIS is not possible given the uncertainty that still remains on the final content of the criteria. 

However, if NMFS finalizes new criteria, BOEM will evaluate the criteria in the context of any 

site-specific analysis under the OCSLA and NEPA. NMFS will also apply any new criteria at this 

site-specific level through any undertaken MMPA authorization process.

CHAPTER 2 

 

ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-3

2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1. ALTERNATIVE A – THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1.1. Description

The proposed action would allow BOEM to authorize G&G activities in support of all BOEM’s

program areas – oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals – throughout the entire AOI, from 

shore (excluding estuaries) to a distance of 648 km (350 nmi) from shore. As explained in Chapter 1 of 

this Programmatic EIS, the seaward limit is based on the maximum constraint line for the ECS under 

Article 76 of the UNCLOS (U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, 2010). Until such time as an 

ECS is established by the U.S., the region between 370 and 648 km (200 and 350 nmi) from shore is part 

of the global commons, and BOEM has decided to include it within the AOI.

A variety of G&G techniques are used to characterize the shallow and deep structure of the shelf, 

slope, and deepwater environments of the ocean. The selection of a specific technique or suite of 

techniques is driven by data needs and the target of interest. The G&G activities evaluated as part of this 

Programmatic EIS are described in Chapter 3. The scenario for the G&G activity levels projected in 

Chapter 3 extends to 2020. The year 2020 is a practical limit for making activity projections and does 

not imply that impacts on resources that have been evaluated are no longer valid beyond this date. The 

activities include but are not limited to the following: 

• various types of deep penetration seismic airgun surveys used almost exclusively for 

oil and gas exploration and development; 

• other types of surveys and sampling activities used only in support of oil and gas 

exploration, including electromagnetic surveys, deep stratigraphic and shallow test 

drilling, and various remote sensing methods;

• HRG surveys used in all three program areas to detect geologic features, geohazards, 

archaeological resources, and certain types of benthic communities; and

• geological and geotechnical bottom sampling used in all three program areas to 

assess the suitability of seafloor sediments for supporting structures (e.g., platforms, 

pipelines, cables, wind turbines) or to evaluate the quantity and quality of sand for 

beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects.

2.1.2. Mitigation Measures

As defined by the CEQ mitigation includes (1) avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action; (2) minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; (3) rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; (4) reducing or eliminating an impact over time, through preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action; and (5) compensating for an impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments. Of these, BOEM’s regulated programs use avoidance and 

minimization as the main, and most effective, strategy for environmental protection.

BOEM assigns mitigation by imposing conditions of approval (COA) on a plan, permit, or 

authorization. Mitigations may originate from programmatic NEPA evaluations such as this one, from 

NTLs, or they may evolve into best management practices through common or accepted use.

All G&G activities authorized under the proposed action would be required to comply with existing 

laws and regulations and undergo site-specific NEPA evaluation Compliance with existing laws and 

regulations – by BOEM as well as individual operators, when required – may, over the time period 

covered by this Programmatic EIS, result in additional measures or changes to the measures described 

here. Because Incidental Take under the ESA for ESA-listed marine mammals is only issued once the 

requirements of Section (101)(a)(5) of the MMPA have been met, G&G surveys that could affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals shall not commence until such time that FWS and/or NMFS have issued the 

appropriate MMPA ITA and coordinated its requirements with those in any existing or new ESA ITS. 

To ensure clarity in application, the mitigation measures included in Alternative A have been

structured to discuss mitigation measures applicable to all surveys, followed by survey protocols 
2-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

addressing the two major groups of surveys: seismic airgun and HRG. A brief summary of the mitigation 

measures for this Programmatic EIS can also be found in Table 2-1.

Measures applicable to all G&G surveys include the following: 

• guidance for vessel strike avoidance;

• guidance for marine debris awareness;

• avoidance of sensitive seafloor resources; 

• guidance for activities in or near NMSs; and

• guidance for military and NASA coordination.

Survey protocols include the following: 

• seismic airgun surveys; 

• time-area closures for seismic surveys; 

• HRG surveys; and

• time-area closures for HRG surveys. 

Appendix C describes and discusses the rationale for mitigation measures, including ones that were 

considered but not selected, as well as measures and technologies identified for possible future use when 

proven effective and feasible. Appendix C also includes a more detailed discussion of protective 

measures such as ramp-up and the acoustic exclusion zone. 

Alternative A does not require any geographic separation of concurrent seismic surveys. However, in 

practice, operators typically maintain a separation of about 17.5 km (9.5 nmi) between concurrent surveys 

to avoid interference (i.e., overlapping reflections received from multiple source arrays).

2.1.2.1. Guidance for Vessel Strike Avoidance

All authorizations for shipboard surveys, regardless of vessel size, would include guidance for vessel 

strike avoidance while a vessel is in transit. The guidance would be similar to Joint BOEM-BSEE 

NTL 2012-G01 (“Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”) (USDOI, 

BOEM and BSEE, 2012a), which incorporates NMFS “Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting 

for Mariners,” addressing protected species identification, vessel strike avoidance, and injured/dead 

protected species reporting. Key elements of the guidance are as follows:

1. Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals

and sea turtles and slow down or stop their vessel, regardless of vessel size, to avoid 

striking protected species. A visual observer aboard all survey vessels would monitor 

an area around a transiting survey vessel, the vessel strike exclusion zone, according 

to the parameters stated in items 3 through 8 below, to help ensure it is free of all

marine mammals and sea turtles. Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike 

avoidance zones for both seismic airgun and HRG survey vessels can be third party 

observers, crew members, or a combination of both.

2. In accordance with NMFS Compliance Guide for the Right Whale Ship Strike 

Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105), when safety allows, vessels, regardless of 

vessel size, shall transit within the 10 knots (kn) (18.5 kilometers/hour [km/h]) speed 

restriction in Dynamic Management Areas (DMA), Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA from 

November 1 through April 30, and critical habitat and Southeast U.S. SMA from 

November 15 through April 15 (Figure 2-1). 

3. When safety permits, vessel speeds should also be reduced to 10 kn (18.5 km/h) or 

less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed 

near a transiting vessel. A single cetacean at the surface may indicate the presence of 

submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures 

should be exercised when an animal is observed.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-5

4. When North Atlantic right whales (NARW) are sighted at any time during the year, 

vessels, regardless of size, must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m 

(1,640 ft). The following avoidance measures must be taken if a vessel comes within 

500 m (1,640 ft) of an NARW: 

a. While underway, the vessel operator shall steer a course away from the NARW

at 10 kn (18.5 km/h) or less until the minimum separation distance has been 

established.

b. If an NARW is spotted in the path of a vessel or within 100 m (328 ft) of a vessel 

underway, the operator shall reduce speed and shift engines to neutral. The 

operator shall re-engage engines only after the NARW has moved out of the path 

of the vessel and is more than 100 m (328 ft) away. If the NARW is still within 

500 m (1,640 ft) of the vessel, the vessel shall select a course away from the 

whale’s course at a speed of 10 kn (18.5 km/h) or less. This procedure shall also 

be followed if an NARW is spotted while a vessel is stationary. Whenever 

possible, a vessel should remain parallel to the whale’s course while maintaining 

the 500-m distance as it transits, avoiding abrupt changes in direction until it has 

left the area.

5. Year-round, when ESA-listed whales other than NARW are sighted, vessels, 

regardless of size, must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m (328 ft). 

The lessee and/or operator must ensure that the following avoidance measures are 

taken if a vessel comes within 100 m (328 ft) of an ESA-listed whale(s) species:

a. The vessel underway must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral, and must 

not engage the engines until the whale has moved outside of the vessel’s path and 

the minimum separation distance has been established.

b. If a vessel is stationary, the vessel must not engage in engines until the 

ESA-listed whale(s) has moved out of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m 

(328 ft). 

6. Year-round, vessels, regardless of size, shall maintain a distance of 50 m (164 ft) or 

greater from all other marine mammals (cetaceans, pinnipeds, and manatees). If an 

animal is encountered during transit, a vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the 

animal’s course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.

7. Year-round, when sea turtles are sighted, the vessel, regardless of size, must maintain 

a distance of 50 m (164 ft) or greater whenever possible.

8. Vessel crews would be required to report sightings of any injured or dead marine 

mammals or sea turtles to BOEM, BSEE, and NMFS within 24 hours (hr), regardless 

of whether the injury or death was caused by their vessel.

In addition, vessel operators would be required to comply with NMFS marine mammal and sea turtle 

viewing guidelines for the Northeast Region (USDOC, NMFS [2011b] for surveys offshore Delaware, 

Maryland, or Virginia) or the Southeast Region (USDOC, NMFS [2011c] for surveys offshore North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida) or combined guidance if recommended by NMFS. These 

measures are meant to reduce the potential for vessel harassment or collision with marine mammals or sea 

turtles, regardless of what activity a vessel is engaged in.

Dynamic Management Areas are designed to regulate vessel traffic in areas where NARWs are 

detected and no existing protective measure(s) are in place or in force. Management of DMAs may 

include temporary re-routing of vessel traffic around the DMA, implementation of vessel speed 

restrictions or recommendations within the DMA, or delayed entry into the DMA (in areas such as rivers). 

Vessel operators may also be required to perform checks on equipment such as steering gear and engines

as part of DMA management. 

Several factors are taken into consideration in establishing a DMA mechanism, such as the 

determination of a threshold (e.g., NARW density and/or behavior, and residency of animals within an 
2-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

area), the determination of the DMA size and length of time that the DMA will remain in effect, and 

applicable restrictions (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/news/DMAs_July_2004.pdf). 

2.1.2.2. Guidance for Marine Debris Awareness

All authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. The 

guidance would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012). All vessel operators, employees, and contractors actively engaged 

in G&G surveys must be briefed on marine trash and debris awareness and elimination as described in 

this NTL. The applicant would be required to ensure that its employees and contractors are made aware 

of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with marine trash and debris and their 

responsibilities for ensuring that trash and debris are not intentionally or accidentally discharged into the 

marine environment where it could affect protected species. The above referenced NTL provides 

information that applicants may use for this awareness training.

2.1.2.3. Avoidance of Sensitive Seafloor Resources

A basic mitigation philosophy for BOEM is to mitigate by avoidance. That is, BOEM must know 

enough about the nature of the seafloor area where activities are proposed so that the activities can be 

moved or offset to another area if sensitive resources are already there. This principle applies to sensitive 

cultural resources such as shipwrecks and prehistoric archaeological resources as well as sensitive benthic 

communities, and it applies to G&G activities in all three program areas.

In addition to the cultural resources and benthic communities discussed in the following sections, 

there is significant undersea infrastructure (for cables etc.) on the ocean bottom within the Mid- and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas. Applicants who propose seafloor-disturbing activities will be required to 

provide site-specific data identifying the existing cable and infrastructure for avoidance. Cable data is 

available from numerous sources and applicants will have access to this data. Where appropriate, 

operators will be required to coordinate with the North American Submarine Cable Association to avoid 

impacts to submarine cable infrastructure.

2.1.2.3.1. Avoidance and Reporting Requirements for Historic and Prehistoric Sites

BOEM and BSEE would require site-specific information regarding potential archaeological 

resources prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of 

bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM and BSEE would use this information to 

ensure that physical impacts on archaeological resources do not take place.

All authorizations for G&G activities that involve seafloor-disturbing activities would include 

requirements for operators to report suspected historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to BOEM 

and BSEE and take precautions to protect the resource. The requirements are expected to be similar to 

NTL 2005-G07 (“Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports”) (USDOI, MMS, 2005), the 

enforcement for which is shared between BOEM and BSEE. BOEM and BSEE also require reporting 

and avoidance for any previously undiscovered suspected archaeological resource and precautions to 

protect the resource from operational activities while appropriate mitigation measures are developed. 

Regulations have been promulgated based on the NHPA (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.), especially 

Sections 106 and 110; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470), 

which prohibits the excavation and removal of items of archaeological interest from Federal lands without 

a permit; and the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. § 431). Under the oil and gas regulations, 

archaeological resource surveys are required as by 30 CFR §§ 550.203(o), 550.204(s), and 

550.1007(a)(5), and an archaeological resource report is required by 30 CFR §§ 550.203(b)(15), 

550.204(b)(8)(v)(A), and 550.1007(a)(5). These existing regulations are applicable to all oil and 

gas-related G&G operations that involve seafloor-disturbing activities, including coring, grab sampling, 

and placement of bottom cables or nodes. Equivalent information needs to be provided for renewable 

energy and marine minerals programs, although equivalent regulations do not expressly exist for 

renewable energy or for marine minerals. The equivalent is provided through guidance, supported by 

regulation and/or statutory authority (see NHPA Section 106, OCSLA, and 30 CFR parts 585 and 580).
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-7

If an operator discovers any archaeological resource while conducting operations authorized under a 

lease, pipeline right-of-way, or other authorizations that involve bottom-disturbing activities, the operator 

must avoid impacting that archaeological resource. In some cases avoidance may take the form of 

immediately halting operations within the area and reporting the discovery to BOEM and BSEE. If 

BOEM determines that the resource is significant, based on criteria under the NHPA, BSEE, in 

consultation with BOEM, will direct how the resource is to be protected during operations and activities. 

If BOEM determines that the resource is not significant, BOEM will so advise BSEE. BSEE informs the 

operator when operations may resume (30 CFR § 250.194).

2.1.2.3.2. Avoidance Requirements for Sensitive Benthic Communities

BOEM will require site-specific information regarding sensitive benthic communities (including 

hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior to 

approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI. All authorizations for seafloor-disturbing activities would be subject 

to restrictions to protect corals, hard/live bottom, and chemosynthetic resources, may include 

requirements for mapping and avoidance in areas where these communities are known or suspected, as 

well as photographic surveys of areas where bottom-founded instrumentation and appurtenances are to be 

deployed. BOEM Renewable Energy Program has developed biological survey guidelines that would 

provide guidance for these site-specific surveys (USDOI, BOEM, 2013). 

BOEM has not designated specific benthic locations for avoidance in the AOI. However, likely areas 

for avoidance would include known hard/live bottom areas, known deepwater coral locations including 

Lophelia and Oculina coral sites, sensitive features within Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), 

deepwater MPAs, Monitor and Gray’s Reef NMSs, the Charleston Bump area, and the walls of submarine 

canyons. These benthic features are discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.1.2. All authorizations for G&G surveys 

proposed within or near these areas would be subject to the review noted above to facilitate avoidance.

BOEM has not developed standardized buffer zones for sensitive benthic communities in the Atlantic, 

but they would likely include what BOEM uses in the Gulf of Mexico, where the locations of many 

sensitive bottom communities are known and there is a long history of bottom surveying in association 

with oil and gas exploration and production. In the Gulf of Mexico, sensitive benthic features in water 

depths less than 300 m (~1,000 ft) are protected by NTL 2009-G39 (“Biologically-Sensitive Underwater 

Features and Areas”) (USDOI, MMS, 2009a), and includes a “no activity” zone within 152 m (500 ft) of 

a verified live bottom. Sensitive benthic features in water depths greater than 300 m (~1,000 ft) are 

protected by NTL 2009-G40 (“Deepwater Benthic Communities”) which includes a 600 m (~2,000 ft) 

setback for cutting discharges (USDOI, MMS, 2009b). Large topographic features such as the Flower 

Garden Banks and similar offshore “banks” are defined by “No Activity Zones” where no 

bottom-disturbing activity may take place within 152 m (500 ft). No seafloor-disturbing activities can 

occur within 30 m (100 ft) of “pinnacle trend” hard/live bottom features that have vertical relief of 2.4 m 

(8 ft) or more. Avoidance of low-relief hard/live bottom features is required but no buffer distance is 

specified; plans proposing activities near these areas must include survey coverage extending to 1,000 m 

(3,280 ft) from the location of proposed bottom-disturbing activity. For high-density deepwater benthic 

communities (including chemosynthetic and deepwater coral communities), setbacks are required of 

610 m (2,000 ft) for drilling discharge locations and 76 m (250 ft) from the location of all other proposed 

seafloor disturbances. Until buffer zones are developed for the Atlantic OCS, site-specific plans will be 

reviewed individually and will likely apply similar setbacks as default buffer zones when G&G activities 

take place in the AOI.

2.1.2.4. Guidance for Activities in or Near National Marine Sanctuaries

There are two NMSs within the AOI: Monitor and Gray’s Reef (see Chapter 4.2.11.1.1 for brief 

descriptions). BOEM cannot authorize seafloor-disturbing activities within the boundaries of an NMS. 

Any activity (such as seafloor disturbance or placement of buoys) that is prohibited by sanctuary 

regulations would require a separate permit issued by ONMS under 15 CFR part 922. Operators should 

contact the relevant sanctuary superintendent for permit application and procedures and for sanctuary 

consultation. Any G&G activities proposed in or near the boundaries of an NMS would be assigned a 

setback distance as a condition of BOEM permit approval to be determined at the time the action is before 
2-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

BOEM and in consultation with the Sanctuary Superintendent pursuant to section 304(d) of the NMSA. 

Chapter 1.6.15 provides information about the NMSA consultation process.

All BOEM authorizations for G&G activities would include instructions to minimize impacts on 

NMS resources. Additionally, operators proposing to conduct activities within or near the boundaries of 

Monitor NMS or Gray’s Reef NMS would be instructed to exercise caution to help ensure that such 

activities do not endanger any other users of the sanctuaries.

Existing Federal regulations for Monitor NMS (15 CFR § 922.61) prohibit certain activities including 

(but not limited to) anchoring, stopping, remaining, or drifting without power at any time; any type of 

subsurface salvage or recovery operation; diving of any type, whether by an individual or by a 

submersible; lowering below the surface of the water any grappling, suction, conveyor, dredging or 

wrecking device; detonating below the surface of the water any explosive or explosive mechanism; 

drilling or coring the seabed; lowering, laying, positioning, or raising any type of seabed cable or 

cable-laying device; trawling; or discharging waste material into the water in violation of any Federal 

statute or regulation.

Existing Federal regulations for Gray’s Reef NMS (15 CFR § 922.92) prohibit certain activities 

including (but not limited to) anchoring; dredging; drilling; using explosives; breaking, damaging, or 

removing any bottom formation; constructing structures; constructing, placing, or abandoning any 

structure, material, or other matter on the submerged lands of the Sanctuary; and discharging or 

depositing any material or other matter except fish or fish parts, bait, or chumming materials, effluent 

from marine sanitation devices (MSD), and vessel cooling water. Under a new regulation that went into 

effect December 4, 2011, the southern third of the NMS is now a research area where fishing and diving 

is prohibited, but vessels are allowed to travel across the area as long as they do not stop 

(Federal Register, 2011b; USDOC, ONMS, 2011).

2.1.2.5. Guidance for Military and NASA Coordination

All G&G activities proposed in sensitive parts of military range complexes or Wallops Flight Facility 

(WFF) use areas would include conditions of approval requiring coordination with DoD and NASA. The 

guidance may be similar to NTL 2009-G06 (“Military Warning and Water Test Areas”) (USDOI, MMS, 

2009c). All vessel operators and contractors actively engaged in G&G surveys and permitted/authorized

activities would be required to establish and maintain early contact and coordination with the appropriate 

military range complex or command headquarters or NASA point of contact regarding the location, 

density, and the planned periods of operation for any structures or surface uses, in order to maximize 

exploration while avoiding or minimizing conflicts with potentially hazardous military operations. 

DoD/BOEM Interagency Working Groups have been formed specifically to address potential conflicts of 

BOEM permitted/authorized G&G surveys and DoD operations in the Atlantic. The two working groups 

are a DoD/BOEM Interagency Working Group for Spatial Conflict Minimization and a DoD/BOEM 

Interagency Working Group on Passive Acoustic Monitoring. All vessel operators and contractors 

actively engaged in G&G surveys are encouraged to establish and maintain early contact and coordination 

with the appropriate command headquarters in order to avoid or minimize the effects of conflicts with 

potentially hazardous military operations. Specific methods of interaction between the working groups 

and operators or contractors actively engaging in G&G surveys have not been determined. However, the 

working groups may request and receive information as needed from relevant outside parties. In addition, 

the installation, location, and planned periods of operation for any structures or surface uses would be

subject to BOEM approval. Depending on the time and place for the activity, the vessel operator may be 

required to enter into a formal Operating Agreement that delineates the specific requirements and 

operating parameters for the proposed activities when determined necessary by military or NASA 

contacts.

If there is a serious threat of harm or damage to life or property, or if it is in the interest of national 

security or defense, pending or approved operations may be suspended in accordance with 30 CFR 

part 250. If national security interests are likely to be in continuing conflict with an existing operating 

agreement, BOEM will direct the lessee to modify any existing operating agreement or to enter into a new 

operating agreement to implement measures to avoid or minimize the identified potential conflicts, 

subject to the terms and conditions and obligations of the legal requirements of the permit or 

authorization. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-9

In addition, all vessel operators and contractors actively engaged in G&G surveys and 

permitted/authorized activities will be required to control their own electromagnetic emissions. Vessels

operating in sensitive areas, warning areas, and water test areas would be required to coordinate 

electromagnetic emissions with the designated command headquarters to the degree necessary to prevent 

damage to, or unacceptable interference with, DoD flight testing, training, or operational activities, 

conducted within individual designated defense operating areas, warning areas, and water test areas.

2.1.3. Survey Protocols

2.1.3.1. Seismic Airgun Surveys 

2.1.3.1.1. Time-Area Closures for Seismic Airgun Surveys 

Alternative A includes a time-area closure intended to avoid most impacts from vessel strikes or 

ensonification of the water column on NARWs. Specific measures to implement the NARW time-area 

closure for seismic airgun surveys are included in the Protocol. Based on the take modeling 

(Appendix E), it is estimated that this closure would avoid about two-thirds of the incidental takes of 

NARWs by active acoustic sound sources over the period of the Programmatic EIS. Although NARWs 

could occur anywhere within the AOI, they are more likely to be found in the calving/nursery areas 

offshore the southeastern U.S. coast during the winter months and near the South Atlantic and 

Mid-Atlantic coast during their seasonal migrations (see Chapter 4.2.2). 

The locations and timing of the closures are shown in Figure 2-2 and summarized in Table 2-2. The 

total closure area under Alternative A would be 9,007,163 acres (ac) (36,451 square kilometers [km2

]), or 

approximately 4.3 percent of the AOI. No G&G surveys using airguns would be authorized within the 

NARW critical habitat area from November 15 through April 15, nor within the Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeast U.S. SMAs from November 1 to April 30). Additionally, G&G surveys using airguns would 

not be allowed in active DMAs. Airgun surveys conducted outside of critical habitat, SMAs, or DMAs 

would be required to remain at a distance such that received levels at those boundaries do not exceed the

Level B harassment threshold, as determined by field verification or modeling.

The Southeast U.S. SMA is a continuous area that extends 37 km (20 nmi) from shore and stretches 

from St. Augustine, Florida, to Brunswick, Georgia (Figure 2-1). The Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is a 

combination of both continuous areas and half circles drawn with 37-km (20-nmi) radii around the 

entrances to certain bays and ports. Within the AOI, the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA includes a continuous 

zone extending between Wilmington, North Carolina, and Brunswick, Georgia, as well as the entrance to 

Delaware Bay (Ports of Wilmington [Delaware] and Philadelphia), the entrance to Chesapeake Bay (Ports 

of Hampton Roads and Baltimore), and the Ports of Morehead City and Beaufort, North Carolina 

(Figure 2-1). The critical habitat located along coastal Florida and Georgia has seasonal restrictions from 

November 15 to April 15.

If there are changes made to critical habitat or SMA boundaries by NOAA in the future, the closure 

areas would be modified. Further, any surveys authorized outside of critical habitat, SMA boundaries, or 

DMAs are required to remain at a distance such that received levels at these boundaries are no more than 

Level B harassment as determined by field verification or modeling.

2.1.3.1.2. Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol

All authorizations for seismic airgun surveys (those involving airguns as an acoustic source) would 

include a survey protocol that specifies mitigation measures for protected species, including an acoustic

exclusion zone, ramp-up requirements, visual monitoring by protected species observers (PSO), and array 

shutdown requirements. The Protocol requirements in this section apply specifically to airguns, not 

electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and 

single beam or multibeam depth sounders that may be operating concurrently during seismic surveys. 

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol is included in Appendix C, which defines terminology, specifies 

requirements for PSOs, and specifies methods for ramp-up, visual monitoring, shutdown of air gun 

arrays, and reporting. The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol includes the recommended but optional use of 

PAM to help detect vocalizing marine mammals. The Protocol is based on Joint BOEM-BSEE 

NTL 2012-G02 (“Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species 
2-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Observer Program”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012b) and Terms and Conditions of the Final 

Biological Opinion for Programmatic G&G Activities in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas 

from 2013 to 2020 (Appendix A). 

Key elements of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol are as follows:

1. All seismic airgun surveys must comply with requirements for vessel strike

avoidance as detailed in Chapter 2.1.2.1.

2. No surveys using airguns shall be authorized within NARW critical habitat in the 

southeast United States from November 15 through April 15 or within the 

Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs from November 1 through April 30 or within 

any established DMAs. Surveys authorized outside of critical habitat, SMAs, and 

DMAs shall operate at distances such that received levels at the boundaries of these 

areas shall not exceed Level B harassment as determined by field verification or 

modeling.

3. Operators shall establish an acoustic exclusion zone for each survey. The zone shall 

be calculated independently and shall be based on the configuration of the array and 

the ambient acoustic environment, but shall not have a radius of less than 500 m 

(1,640 ft). Monitoring of the acoustic exclusion zone shall be executed by PSOs. 

4. The requirements for PSOs and their role as acoustic exclusion zone observers are 

summarized in Table 2-3 and include the following:

a. At least two PSOs will be required on seismic airgun vessels to monitor the 

acoustic exclusion zone. 

b. Protected species observers will monitor an acoustic exclusion zone (according to 

the requirements of the following elements) for protected species and to observe 

and document their presence and behavior, searching the area around the vessel 

using hand-held reticule binoculars, and the unaided eye. For nighttime 

operations or if operations continue during periods of reduced visibility, PSOs 

would monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using shipboard 

lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment and/or PAM. 

c. Protected species observers must be third party observers.

d. Protected species observers must possess extensive, relevant experience as PSOs

and have completed a PSO training program. All observer résumés will be 

submitted to BOEM and NMFS for approval prior to survey operations. The 

training program shall be in accordance with the recommendations described in 

the NMFS 2013 National Standards for a Protected Species Observer and Data 

Management Program: A Model for Seismic Surveys (Baker et al., 2013). 

e. The following schedule limitations shall apply to PSOs during survey activities:

i. Other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no 

additional duties shall be assigned to PSOs during their watch.

ii. A watch shall be no longer than four consecutive hours.

iii. A break of at least 2 hr shall occur between 4-hr watches, no other duties 

shall be assigned during this period.

iv. A PSO’s combined watch schedule shall not exceed 12 hr during a 24-hr 

period.

5. The acoustic exclusion zone and adjacent waters shall be visually monitored for a 

minimum of 60 minutes (min) for the absence of all marine mammals and sea turtles

before initiating ramp-up procedures. If none are detected, ramp-up procedures may 

begin. Do not initiate ramp-up procedures at night or when conditions prevent the 

visual inspection of the acoustic exclusion zone, unless PAM is utilized.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-11

6. Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The preferred airgun to begin 

with should be the smallest airgun, in terms of energy output (decibels) and volume 

(cubic inches). Continue ramp-up by gradually activating additional airguns over a 

period of at least 20 min, but no longer than 40 min, until the desired operating level 

of the airgun array is obtained.

7. Immediately shut down all airguns if any marine mammal (see exception for 

delphinids below) or sea turtle is detected entering or within the defined acoustic

exclusion zone. Shutdown due to the presence of any marine mammal or sea turtle 

sighting within the acoustic exclusion zone or for any other reasons, such as 

mechanical or electronic failure that results in the cessation of the sound source for 

more than 20 min, must be followed by a 60-min all-clear period and then initiation 

of the full ramp-up procedure.

8. The operator may reduce the source level of the airgun array, using the same shot 

interval as the seismic survey, to maintain a minimum source level of 

160 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) (not to exceed Level B harassment criterion) for the 

duration of certain activities. By maintaining the minimum source level, he will not 

be required to conduct the 60-min visual clearance of the acoustic exclusion zone

before ramping back up to full output. Activities that are appropriate for maintaining 

the minimum source level are (1) all turns between transect lines, when a survey 

using the full array is being conducted immediately prior to the turn and will be 

resumed immediately after the turn; and (2) unscheduled, unavoidable maintenance 

of the airgun array that requires the interruption of a survey to shut down the array. 

The survey may be resumed immediately after the repairs are completed if this period 

does not exceed 20 min and visual observations continue and no marine mammals or 

sea turtles are observed in the acoustic exclusion zone. There may be other occasions 

when this practice is appropriate, but use of the minimum source level to avoid the 

60-min visual clearance of the acoustic exclusion zone is only for events that occur 

during a survey using the full power array. The minimum sound source level is not 

to be used to allow a later ramp-up after dark or in conditions when ramp-up would 

not otherwise be allowed.

9. Shutdown is not required for delphinids approaching the vessel (or vessel’s towed 

equipment) that indicates a “voluntary approach” by the delphinids. A “voluntary 

approach” is defined as a clear and purposeful approach toward the vessel by the

delphinid(s) with a speed and vector that indicates that the delphinid(s) is 

approaching the vessels and remains near the vessel or towed equipment. The intent 

of the delphinid(s) would be subject to the determination of the PSO. If the PSO 

determines that the delphinid(s) is actively trying to avoid the vessel or the towed 

equipment, the acoustic sources must be immediately shut down as per his/her 

instruction. The PSO must record the details of any non-shutdowns in the presence 

of delphinids, including the distance of the delphinid(s) from the vessel at the first 

sighting of the delphinid(s), their heading, where the delphinid positions itself 

relative to the vessel, how long they stay near the vessel, and any identifiable 

behaviors. After a shutdown, the operator may recommence seismic operations with

a ramp-up of airguns only when the acoustic exclusion zone has been visually 

inspected for at least 60 min to help ensure the absence of all marine mammals and 

sea turtles. 

10. Borehole seismic differs from conventional exploration seismic by the placement of 

the acoustic receivers in the borehole of a well as opposed to towed streamers or 

ocean bottom placement of receivers, i.e., nodes or cables. Note: A complete 

description of borehole surveys can be found in Chapter 3.2.2.1.7. Because of this 

key difference the following mitigation measures apply only to borehole surveys

a. During daylight hours, ramp-up will not be required for shutdowns of less than 

30 min if no marine mammals or sea turtles are observed in the acoustic
2-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

exclusion zone. If any are observed, operators will be required to conduct the 

60-min visual clearance of the acoustic exclusion zone before ramping back up to 

full output.

b. Nighttime or poor visibility ramp-up is allowed only when passive acoustics are 

used. For borehole seismic surveys utilizing passive acoustics during nighttime 

and periods of poor visibility, ramp-up is not required for shutdowns of 30 min or 

less.

c. The PSOs may be stationed on the source boat or the associated drilling rig or 

platform if it provides a clear view of the acoustic exclusion zone and adjacent 

waters.

d. All other mitigations and provisions for seismic surveys as set forth in this 

Protocol will apply to borehole seismic surveys.

e. Reports should reference OCS Lease Number, Area/Block, and Borehole 

Number.

The purpose of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol is to minimize the potential for injury (Level A 

harassment) of marine mammals to the maximum extent practicable. The radius of the acoustic exclusion 

zone would be based on the predicted range at which animals could be exposed to a received sound 

pressure level (SPL) of 180 dB re 1 μPa, which is the current NMFS criterion for Level A harassment of 

cetaceans by pulsed (and continuous) sources. The radius of the acoustic exclusion zone would be 

calculated on a survey-specific basis but would not be less than 500 m (1,640 ft). Based on calculations 

in the Acoustic Modeling Report (Appendix D), the 180-dB zone for a large airgun array (5,400 cubic 

inches [in3

]) ranges from 799 to 2,109 m (2,622 to 6,920 ft), with a mean of 1,086 m (3,563 ft). For oil 

and gas surveys using a small airgun array (90 in3

), the calculated 180-dB zone ranges from 76 to 186 m 

(249 to 610 ft), with a mean of 128 m (420 ft). 

Although NMFS also uses a criterion of 190 dB re 1 μPa for Level A harassment of pinnipeds by 

pulsed (and continuous) sources, it is unlikely that a smaller acoustic exclusion zone based on the 190-dB 

criterion would be appropriate for any seismic airgun survey, based on the rare occurrence of pinnipeds in 

the AOI.

Although there are no noise exposure criteria for sea turtles, the Protocol is expected to similarly 

reduce the risk of injury in sea turtles. With these measures in place, no mortalities or injuries of marine 

mammals or sea turtles are expected. The operational mitigation measures included in the Seismic

Airgun Survey Protocol would reduce the extent of, but not prevent, behavioral responses including 

Level B harassment of marine mammals. Other measures such as the time-area closure for NARW

(described previously) would help to reduce the risk of those impacts.

2.1.3.2. HRG Surveys 

2.1.3.2.1. HRG Survey Time-Area Closure

The HRG survey time-area closure, like the seismic airgun closure, is intended to avoid most impacts 

from vessel strikes or ensonification of the water column on NARWs. Specific measures to implement 

the NARW time-area closure are included in the HRG Survey Protocol. Since the release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS, the non-airgun HRG time-area closures and protocol have been clarified and the 

case-by-case language has been removed. Only non-airgun HRG surveys operating at frequencies above

30 kilohertz (kHz) would be allowed to occur within NARW critical habitat from November 15 through 

April 15. Use of frequencies at and below 30 kHz would be evaluated by BOEM on a critical need basis, 

considering whether survey planning could have scheduled survey activities outside of the calving and 

nursing season and how the particular survey fills a critical need. If surveys at or below 30 kHz are 

authorized, these would be restricted to daylight hours only.

Time-area closure restrictions would also apply if a DMA is established. Use of all non-airgun sound 

sources operating in a DMA must be discontinued within 24 hr of its establishment. In addition, surveys 

authorized by BOEM outside, but in proximity of, DMA boundaries are required to remain at a distance 

such that received levels, for all sound sources, at these boundaries are no more than Level B harassment

criteria. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-13

The closure area is as described in Chapter 2.1.3.1.1 and was established based on additional 

information developed by BOEM and provided to NMFS during the Section 7 consultation process for 

this Programmatic EIS. This additional information, which includes technical and supporting information 

that further defines BOEM’s strategy to mitigate or avoid adverse impacts to NARWs in SMAs and 

critical habitat, is included in Appendix A. Locations and timing of the closures are shown in 

Figure 2-2. 

2.1.3.2.2. HRG Survey Protocol

HRG surveys with airgun sources would be subject to the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol discussed 

previously. BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be used for most HRG surveys. These surveys 

are expected to use electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; boomer, sparker, and chirp 

subbottom profilers; and single beam or multibeam depth sounders. Some autonomous underwater 

vehicles (AUV) can use combinations of sources for HRG data collection. All authorizations for 

non-airgun HRG surveys would include requirements for visual monitoring of a vessel strike exclusion 

zone. Key elements of the protocol requirements are as follows:

1. All HRG surveys must comply with requirements for vessel strike avoidance as 

detailed in Chapter 2.1.2.1. The recommended separation distance for NARW of 

500 m (1,640 ft) would remain in effect during HRG surveys since it exceeds the

vessel strike exclusion zone radius specified below. Recommended separation 

distance for other whales is 100 m (328 ft) and for small cetaceans is 50 m (164 ft). 

The vessel strike avoidance zone for sea turtles is 50 m (164 ft). Vessel speeds for all 

vessels transiting through critical habitat and the Southeast U.S. SMA and DMAs

from November 15 to April 15 are restricted to no greater than 10 kn. Vessel speed 

restrictions in the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA would be in place from November 1 to 

April 30. Operators must make use of the Early Warning System, Sighting Advisory 

System, and Mandatory Ship Reporting System while operating in NARW critical 

habitat, SMAs, and DMAs at the times of year those designations are active or 

year-round in the case of the NARW critical habitat. 

2. An acoustic exclusion zone would be established for HRG surveys conducted with 

sound sources operating at and below 200 kHz; an acoustic exclusion zone is not 

required for HRG sound sources operating above 200 kHz. The acoustic exclusion 

zone would be a 200 m (656 ft) radius zone around the sound source, which for most 

cases would encompass the 180 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) isopleth. In the event the 

source produces an advanced calculated (via modeling) or field-verified radius 

greater than 200 m (656 ft), the acoustic exclusion zone would be increased and that 

increase would be quantified through field verification or modeling. In addition, the 

applicant would be required to demonstrate that the larger acoustic exclusion zone 

could be effectively monitored. Effectiveness can be demonstrated through available 

monitoring studies or use of a vessel providing sufficient observation deck height to 

help ensure adequate coverage. This discussion regarding effectiveness in no way 

presupposes any decisions NMFS might make regarding a particular proposal relative 

to the MMPA.

3. The acoustic exclusion zone would be monitored by trained PSOs. At least one PSO 

would be required on watch aboard HRG survey vessels at all times during daylight 

hours (dawn to dusk – i.e., from about 30 min before sunrise to 30 min after sunset) 

when survey operations are being conducted, unless conditions (fog, rain, darkness) 

make sea surface observations impossible. If conditions deteriorate during daylight 

hours such that the sea surface observations are halted, visual observations must 

resume as soon as conditions permit. Ongoing activities may continue but may not 

be initiated under such conditions (i.e., without appropriate pre-activity monitoring). 

4. The requirements for PSOs and their role as acoustic exclusion zone observers are 

summarized in Table 2-3 and include the following:
2-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

a. At least one PSO will be required on watch to monitor the acoustic exclusion 

zone. 

b. The PSO will monitor an acoustic exclusion zone (according to the requirements 

of the following elements) for protected species and to observe and document 

their presence and behavior, searching the area around the vessel using hand-held 

reticule binoculars, and the unaided eye. If BOEM approves nighttime 

operations or operations during periods of reduced visibility, operators would 

monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using, for example,

shipboard lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment, and/or 

PAM. 

c. Protected species observers may be trained third party observers, crew members 

trained as observers, or a combination of both.

d. Protected species observers must be approved by NMFS. All observer resumes

and certifications or any evidence of training will be submitted to NMFS for 

approval prior to survey operations.

e. The following schedule limitations shall apply to PSOs during survey activities:

i. Other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no 

additional duties shall be assigned to PSOs during their watch.

ii. A watch shall be no longer than four consecutive hours.

iii. A break of at least 2 hr shall occur between 4-hr watches, no other duties 

shall be assigned during this period.

iv. A PSO’s combined watch schedule shall not exceed 12 hr during a 24-hr 

period.

5. Monitoring of the acoustic exclusion zone would begin no less than 60 min prior to 

start-up and continue until operations cease. Immediate shutdown of the sound 

source would occur if any marine mammal or sea turtle is detected entering or within 

the acoustic exclusion zone. Subsequent restart of the equipment may only occur 

following a confirmation that the acoustic exclusion zone is clear of all marine 

mammals and sea turtles for 60 min.

6. Shutdown would not be required for delphinids approaching the acoustic exclusion 

zone that indicates a “voluntary approach” by the delphinid. A “voluntary approach” 

is defined as a purposeful approach toward the vessel by the delphinid(s) with a 

speed and vector that indicates that the delphinid(s) is approaching the vessels and 

remains near the vessel or towed equipment. The intent of the delphinid(s) would be 

subject to the determination of the PSO. If the PSO determines that the delphinid(s) 

is actively trying to avoid the vessel or the towed equipment, the acoustic sources 

must be immediately shutdown as per his/her instruction. The PSO must record the 

details of any non-shutdowns in the presence of delphinids, including the distance of 

the delphinid(s) from the vessel at the first sighting, their heading, where the

delphinid positions itself relative to the vessel, how long they stay near the vessel, 

and any identifiable behaviors. After a shutdown, HRG operations may recommence 

only when the acoustic exclusion zone has been visually inspected for at least 60 min 

to help ensure the absence of all marine mammals and sea turtles. 

7. HRG sound sources used within NARW critical habitat from November 15 through 

April 15 shall operate at frequencies above 30 kHz. Only surveys BOEM determines 

to be critical may be authorized to use frequencies at and below 30 kHz and those 

surveys would only occur during daylight hours. Previously stated shutdown 

requirements would apply to these surveys. This determination will consider whether 

surveys planning could have scheduled survey activities outside of the calving and 

nursing season and how the particular survey fills a critical need.

8. If during the course of a survey a DMA is established, further use of all sound 

sources operating at and below 30 kHz in that DMA must be discontinued within 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-15

24 hr of its establishment. Any surveys authorized by BOEM outside, but in 

proximity of, DMA boundaries are required to remain at a distance such that received 

levels, for all sound sources, at these boundaries are no more than Level B 

harassment criteria, as determined by field verification or modeling. 

9. BOEM will notify NMFS at least 30 days in advance of the start of the proposed 

activity with a brief determination regarding whether the proposed action is 

consistent with the activities considered in the Programmatic EIS or associated ESA

consultation. If the proposed action is not consistent with the activities and 

conditions considered in this Programmatic EIS or the associated ESA consultation 

then a separate Section 7 consultation, along with other necessary environmental 

documentation, may be required.

BOEM expects that a 200-m (656-ft) radius acoustic exclusion zone can be effectively monitored 

from the types of coastal survey vessels expected to be used for HRG surveys. An acoustic exclusion 

zone radius of 200 m (656 ft) would encompass the Level A harassment radius calculated for all of the 

representative electromechanical sources included in this Programmatic EIS, as explained in 

Appendix C. Depending on the source levels of the equipment used on particular surveys, this radius 

may also encompass the Level B harassment zone. In addition, the permit/authorization survey protocol 

would allow an operator to monitor a radius larger than 200 m (656 ft) if the operator demonstrates that it 

can be effectively monitored. An operator might demonstrate effectiveness in the choice of survey vessel 

if it provides for an observer height on deck that easily allows for visual observation of an acoustic

exclusion zone larger than 200 m (656 ft). As noted previously, this discussion regarding effectiveness in 

no way presupposes any decisions NMFS might make regarding a particular proposal relative to the 

MMPA. However, any decision by an operator not to pursue an MMPA authorization should be made in 

coordination with NMFS. 

2.1.4. Summary of Impacts for Alternative A

Conclusions on impacts associated with Alternative A are further discussed in Chapter 4.2 and 

summarized by resource in the following sections. A comparative summary of impacts is presented in 

Table 2-4. 

The impact analysis for each resource was organized by impact-producing factor (IPF). The 

following IPFs were analyzed: active acoustic sound sources; vessel and equipment noise; vessel traffic; 

aircraft traffic and noise; vessel strike exclusion zones; trash and debris; seafloor disturbance; drilling 

discharges; onshore support activities; and accidental fuel spills.

Table 2-4 and the impact summary text use the following impact categories:

• Negligible: Little or no measurable/detectable impact. 

• Minor: Impacts are detectable, short-term, extensive or localized, but less than 

severe;

• Moderate: Impacts are detectable, short-term, extensive, and severe; or impacts are 

detectable, short-term or long-lasting, localized, and severe; or impacts are 

detectable, long-lasting, extensive or localized, but less than severe.

• Major: Impacts are detectable, long-lasting, extensive, and severe.

These general significance categories were tailored as needed to evaluate impacts of each relevant 

IPF on each resource. Alternative A allows for an adaptive management approach at the site-specific 

level. Subsequent environmental analysis would analyze the best available information, and

authorizations would adjust mitigations as necessary. 

2.1.4.1. Impacts on Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.2.1) for Alternative A

The main IPF for benthic communities is seafloor disturbance; other relevant IPFs include drilling 

discharges, active acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.
2-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Impacts of Seafloor Disturbance and Drilling Discharges

Several types of G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and 

shallow test wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could physically disturb 

the seafloor and result in localized burial or crushing of benthic organisms. In addition, drilling 

discharges from drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells could result in localized smothering 

and burial of benthic communities. The total area of seafloor disturbance would be a negligible 

percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Because BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G 

activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures, impacts on sensitive benthic communities such as coral, hard/live bottom, 

chemosynthetic, and deepwater canyon communities are expected to be avoided. Impacts of seafloor 

disturbance under Alternative A are expected to be negligible to minor, and impacts of drilling 

discharges are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Most marine invertebrates do not have sensory organs that can perceive sound pressure, although 

many have tactile hairs or sensory organs that are sensitive to disturbances such as those caused by 

hydroacoustic equipment. The limited available data assessing physiological effects or biochemical 

responses of marine invertebrates to underwater noise indicate that serious pathological and physiological 

effects are unlikely. Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on benthic communities are expected to be 

negligible. 

Impacts of Trash and Debris

Benthic impacts of trash and debris deposition on the seafloor are expected to be avoided through 

vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, all authorizations 

for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. Because operators 

must comply with Federal regulations and would be expected to follow the guidance provided by BOEM, 

the amount of trash and debris dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental loss of trash and 

debris is anticipated, some of which could sink to the seafloor. Therefore, benthic community impacts 

from trash and debris are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2 to 7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface. Although particulate 

matter contaminated with diesel fuel could sink through the water column, given the small size of the spill 

and the loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and dispersion, a small fuel spill would be unlikely 

to reach the seafloor or contaminate bottom sediments. Impacts on benthic communities would be 

expected to be negligible. 

2.1.4.2. Impacts on Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.2.2) for Alternative A

Relevant IPFs for marine mammals are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, 

vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

The proposed action includes extensive seismic airgun surveys as well as HRG surveys. Airguns 

used during seismic surveys produce acoustic pulses that are within the hearing range of all marine 

mammals. HRG surveys typically would use only electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; 

boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders, some of which are 

expected to be beyond the functional hearing range of marine mammals or would be detectable only at 

very close range. Detailed characteristics of active acoustic sound sources are described in Appendix D. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-17

Based on the scope of the proposed action, seismic airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys 

could affect individuals from all marine mammal species within the AOI except the West Indian manatee

and the four pinniped species (gray seal, harbor seal, hooded seal, and harp seal), which are considered 

extralimital and are unlikely to be affected.

Incidental take of marine mammals was estimated for the proposed action scenario using the Acoustic 

Integration Model© (AIM©), which is a four-dimensional (4D), individual-based, Monte Carlo statistical 

model designed to predict the exposure of receivers (e.g., an animal) to any stimulus propagating through 

space and time (Appendix E). The modeling used both the current NMFS criteria for Level A and 

Level B harassment, as well as the Southall et al. (2007) criterion for injury (Level A harassment) for 

comparison purposes. NMFS currently uses precautionary thresholds that would indicate when the 

potential for Level A or Level B harassment cannot be dismissed. Under NMFS current criteria, marine 

mammals exposed to impulsive sounds at or above 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (for cetaceans) or 190 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) (for pinnipeds) are considered to have been taken by Level A (i.e., injurious) harassment. 

Behavioral harassment (Level B) would occur when marine mammals are exposed to sounds at or above 

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pulsed sounds (e.g., airgun pulses) and 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-pulsed 

sound (e.g., ship noise). 

Southall et al. (2007) proposed that the lowest sound exposure levels (SEL) that might elicit slight 

auditory injury from impulsive sounds (e.g., airgun pulses) are 198 dB re 1 μPa2

-s in cetaceans 

and 186 dB re 1 μPa2

-s in the more sensitive pinnipeds. Corresponding values for nonpulse sounds 

(e.g., side-scan sonars; boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; multibeam depth sounders, etc.) 

are 215 dB re 1 μPa2

-s in cetaceans and 203 dB re 1 μPa2-s in pinnipeds. Southall et al. (2007) also 

concluded that receipt of an instantaneous flat-weighted peak pressure exceeding 230 dB re 1 μPa (peak) 

for cetaceans or 218 dB re 1 μPa (peak) for pinnipeds might also lead to auditory injury even if the 

aforementioned SEL criterion was not exceeded. The Southall et al. (2007) criteria are not currently used 

by NMFS within the framework of the MMPA.

The acoustic and impact modeling conducted to support this Programmatic EIS is by its very nature 

complex and requires numerous assumptions to predict results in scenarios where:

• the period modeled is in the future and spans 5 years, during which the knowledge of 

the source locations and movement, animal locations and movement, 

oceanographic/acoustic conditions, equipment descriptions and specification, and 

even the time of the year for each survey are not precisely known;

• the details of marine mammal abundances, distributions, and behavior patterns are 

not precisely known and are subject to change as animal populations vary from year 

to year and location to location; and

• the development of new or redesigned survey equipment, survey techniques, survey 

geometries or even signal processing approaches could change.

Despite uncertainty and variability in future actions, the actual employment of numerical acoustic and 

propagation models, source models, and even impact integration models demand that numerous specific 

details be identified and used during their calculations (see Appendices D and E). However, it must be 

emphasized that each of these assumptions are purposely developed to be conservative and accumulate 

throughout the analysis (e.g., representative sound source is modeled at highest sound levels and always 

at maximum power and operation, sound levels received by an animal are calculated at highest levels, 

marine mammal density values used likely exceed actual densities, and models do not include the effect 

of all mitigations in reducing take estimates). Therefore, the results of the modeling predictions will 

overestimate take. In order to better understand how these conservative results differ from actual in situ

impacts, several of the most prominent conservative assumptions are discussed below.

• Acoustic Source Specifications: There is a large variation in the size, configuration 

and ultimately the source level of the airgun arrays potentially employed during 

surveys. The modeling selected one source that was representative of those used, 

(i.e., that it was more powerful than most, about 95%, of the sources listed) that 

would be used in the various survey types. However, this selection necessitated that 

that source conservatively represented sources that were often 10 or more dB lower 
2-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

in power. Additionally, it was assumed that the modeled array was always at 

maximum power and that all airguns were fully operational for fully completed 

survey scenarios. Similarly, for the mineral resources survey, the most conservative 

parameters for source level, signal repetition rate, pulse length, etc. were assumed. 

This is not always the case for either type of source in the field.

• Acoustic Source Modeling: For simplicity, the acoustic modeling replaces the 

actual predicted airgun array sound field with one produced by a point source (i.e., 

one that has a single larger airgun, vs. the distributed actual airgun array) and a beam 

pattern. This is fairly accurate in the far-field, which is typically 100-300 m 

(328-984 ft) from the array center and outward, but within this range (i.e., in the 

near-field) this can greatly overestimate the apparent source level and the subsequent 

impacts calculated. Simply replacing this conservative near-field approximation is 

feasible from a mathematical modeling point of view. However, since it is highly 

dependent on the actual source parameters, it would be difficult to justify it in the 

Programmatic EIS and it would greatly enlarge the modeling effort, while not 

necessarily remaining conservative.

• Acoustic Propagation Modeling: Typically, the acoustic parameters used in 

acoustic modeling (including sound velocity profile, bottom sediment 

types/distributions/ thicknesses/coefficients, and surface wind and wave values) are 

averaged seasonal values over reasonably sampled areas and time periods. These 

averaging processes remove most local variability while capturing the general effect 

of the sound speed on acoustic propagation. This generally tends to underestimate 

the transmission loss and therefore overestimate the received levels at all ranges to 

some degree. Actual in situ propagation therefore typically displays much more 

fading and disruption of the signal, especially for signals shorter than 1 second (i.e., 

airguns). 

• Acoustic Modeling of the Multi-Path: When a signal propagates through the 

ocean, it typically follows many pathways between the source and a receiver (e.g., an 

animal). For example, one path may be directly between the source and receiver, 

while others may reflect off of the ocean surface or bottom before arriving at the 

receiver. For most of the models used in acoustic propagation analyses, the model 

assumes that the signals continue until all of the significant paths have arrived at the 

receiver. The energy from these different pathways is then summed to derive a final 

received value. This is a conservative approach for short signals, like airgun pulses, 

and this spreading of a signal (and its energy) generally increases as range increases. 

This is not a simple or easy correction to make since it can also be highly dependent 

on the receiver’s position in range and depth. Therefore, the conservative assumption 

is used. Additionally, real world localized effects, such as bubble plumes from 

breaking waves and the scattering of sound from plants and air present near the 

ocean’s surface, also greatly reduce received levels for animals within 3-6 m 

(10-20 ft) of the ocean’s surface.

• Marine Mammal Density Values: Marine mammal density values are typically 

very conservative. As a simple check of their conservatism, a calculation consisting 

of multiplying each density value by the area that it covers and then summing these 

values results in total population values that greatly exceed those identified in the 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment reports.

• Marine Mammal Congregations: Marine mammals, especially dolphins, often 

occur in pods or groups of animals. When this occurs, the actual density near that 

pod can be greater than those used in these calculations, but the corresponding 

density for much of the surrounding areas has been decreased. Statistically, this 

averages out for multiple model runs that do not account for this. However, when 

this occurs during actual operations, sources may be turned off, especially since large 

pods of dolphins, which often can consist of hundreds of animals, are much easier to 

observe and mitigate for.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-19

• Mitigation: The calculations included here do not include most mitigation effects 

that would reduce the potential for take. The mitigation measures are focused on 

reducing take and represent a best practices approach. However, there are limitations 

to mitigation measures effectiveness. For example, visual monitoring and PAM are 

not 100 percent effective due to a variety of factors including the physical conditions; 

presence of animals at the surface; difficulty in species identification; vocalization of 

animals; lack of knowledge regarding sound produced by some species; and the 

regular masking of lower frequency vocalizations, such as those produced by baleen 

whales, by vessel noise. There would be one exception to this statement in that the 

take estimates did take into account the effect of the NARW airgun time-area closure 

outlined in Alternative A and described in Appendix E, Section 7.4.3. 

These conservatively modeled take estimates do not alone reflect BOEM’s determination of the 

impact to marine mammals. The impact assessment approach used by BOEM is described in detail in 

Chapter 4. It considers the modeled take estimates, the best available information on marine mammal 

distribution, current science assessing the potential effects of G&G surveys on marine mammals, and an 

evaluation of how employed mitigation can reduce these effects (recognizing that all mitigations cannot 

be effective 100% of the time). This assessment is then compared against the significance criteria

(described in Chapter 4.2.2.2.1) to identify an anticipated level of impact. Future site-specific actions 

proposed by operators will, as necessary, follow the MMPA procedures for issuance of an ITA, which 

will again evaluate potential impacts.

Seismic Airgun Surveys

For seismic airgun surveys, modeling of incidental take was conducted using the AIM© as explained 

in Appendix E. Take under the MMPA can range from behavioral disturbance to mortality. Total 

numbers of Level A and Level B incidental takes were estimated for each year included in the 2012-2020 

time period covered by the Programmatic EIS. The modeling predicts Level A harassment of all marine 

mammal species except the West Indian manatee and the three modeled pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray 

seal, and harbor seal) (all values are zero due to low densities in the AOI). It is expected that due to the 

similar density of harp seal with the other pinnipeds within the AOI, no Level A harassment would occur. 

Due to the conservative nature of the modeling and without consideration of most mitigation, the numbers 

below overestimate take. Using the NMFS 180-dB criterion, the five species with the highest numbers of 

annual Level A takes are estimated to be:

• bottlenose dolphin (0-11,748 individuals/year);

• short-beaked common dolphin (0-6,147 individuals/year);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (0-5,848 individuals/year);

• short-finned pilot whale (0-4,631 individuals/year); and

• striped dolphin (0-3,993 individuals/year).

For comparison purposes, using the Southall et al. (2007) criteria and without the application of most 

mitigations, estimated Level A takes are much lower, with the following top five species:

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (0-1,496 individuals/year);

• striped dolphin (0-1,020 individuals/year);

• Risso’s dolphin (0-731 individuals/year);

• pantropical spotted dolphin (0-263 individuals/year); and

• short-beaked common dolphin (0-225 individuals/year);

The modeling also predicts Level B harassment of all marine mammal species except the West Indian 

manatee and the three modeled pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray seal, and harbor seal). It is expected that due 

to the similar density of harp seal with the other pinnipeds within the AOI, no Level B harassment would 

occur. Due to the conservative nature of the modeling and without consideration of most mitigation, the 
2-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

numbers below overestimate take. Using the NMFS 160-dB criterion, the five species with the highest 

annual Level B take estimates are as follows: 

• bottlenose dolphin (0-1,151,442 individuals/year);

• short-beaked common dolphin (0-602,424 individuals/year);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (0-573,121 individuals/year); 

• short-finned pilot whale (0-453,897 individuals/year); and

• striped dolphin (0-391,376 individuals/year);

Seven marine mammal species that occur in the AOI are federally listed as endangered species 

(NARW, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, humpback whale, sperm whale, and West Indian manatee). 

The modeling predicts Level A and B incidental takes of all species except the West Indian manatee. Of 

the endangered species, the humpback whale has the highest estimated numbers of both Level A takes (up

to 12 individuals/year using the 180-dB criterion and up to 6 individuals/year using the Southall et al. 

[2007] criterion) and Level B takes (up to 1,131 individuals/year using the 160-dB criterion). 

The modeling also predicts the possibility of a small number of Level A incidental takes of NARW, 

including 0-2 individuals/year using the 180-dB criterion and <1 individual using the Southall et al. 

(2007) criterion. However, most Level A incidental takes predicted by the modeling are expected to be 

avoided, as explained in the next paragraph. Level B incidental takes are estimated to range from 

0-224 individuals/year. Again, mitigation measures are expected to reduce take. The proposed action 

includes a time-area closure for NARW that has been factored into the incidental take calculations. It 

reduces estimated Level A and Level B incidental takes by about 67 percent (as compared with no 

time-area closures).

The Level A incidental takes predicted by the AIM© do not take into account the operational 

mitigation measures included in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to help ensure that marine mammals

are not present within the 180-dB acoustic exclusion zone. Although these measures are not expected to 

be 100 percent effective, they are expected to significantly reduce the risk of Level A harassment to 

marine mammals. The acoustic exclusion zone could extend up to 2.1 km (1.3 miles [mi]) from a large 

airgun array (5,400 in3

) and up to 186 m (610 ft) from a small airgun array (90 in3). If the operational 

mitigation measures were 100 percent successful, then all Level A harassment of marine mammals would 

be avoided. BOEM expects that mitigation measures would not be 100 percent effective, and therefore 

there is the potential to expose some animals to sound levels exceeding the 180-dB criterion, which would 

constitute Level A harassment and could result in injury. The operational mitigation measures during 

seismic airgun surveys would not fully prevent Level B harassment (as defined by the 160-dB zone), 

which could extend up to 15 km (9.3 mi) from a large airgun array (5,400 in3

) and up to 3 km (1.9 mi) 

from a small airgun array (90 in3

), depending on the geographic location and season modeled.

In conclusion, seismic airgun surveys have the potential to result in both Level A and Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. No mortalities would be expected, but Level A incidental takes of 

nearly all marine mammal species in the AOI are predicted by the modeling. Although these impacts are 

expected to be avoided to the maximum extent practicable through the mitigation measures included in 

the proposed action, the mitigation may not be 100 percent effective and therefore there would be the 

possibility of several Level A takes. The most likely and extensive effects of underwater noise on marine 

mammals are behavioral responses (Level B harassment). Most acoustic impacts on NARWs (and some 

impacts on most other marine mammals) are expected to be avoided by the NARW time-area closure 

included in the proposed action. Manatees and pinnipeds are unlikely to come into contact with active 

acoustic sound sources, and no acoustic harassment is expected for those species. Due to the spatial and 

temporal extent of the surveys in the proposed action, the total number of Level B harassments predicted, 

and the likelihood that some degree of Level A harassment may not be prevented, overall impacts on 

marine mammals from seismic airgun surveys are expected to be moderate. 

Non-Airgun HRG Surveys

HRG surveys typically would use only electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; boomer, 

sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders. Detailed characteristics of 

representative electromechanical sources selected for this analysis are described in Appendix D. The 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-21

hearing range of marine mammals is from 7 hertz (Hz) to 180 kHz. Boomer pulses are expected to be 

within the hearing range of all marine mammals. However, the operating frequency of the representative 

multibeam system (240 kHz) is above the hearing range of all cetaceans. For side-scan sonar, the 

100 kHz operating frequency is within the hearing range of mid- and high-frequency cetaceans, but the 

400 kHz frequency is above the range of all groups. For the chirp subbottom profiler, the 3.5 and 12 kHz 

frequencies are within the hearing range of all cetaceans, but the 200 kHz is above their hearing range. 

Frequencies emitted by individual equipment may differ from these representative systems selected for 

programmatic analysis.

For non-airgun HRG surveys, modeling of incidental take was conducted using the AIM© as 

explained in Appendix E. The modeling predicts low numbers of Level A harassment for all marine 

mammal species except the West Indian manatee and the three modeled pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray 

seal, and harbor seal) (all values are zero due to low densities in the AOI). Due to the conservative nature 

of the modeling and without consideration of most mitigation, the numbers below overestimate take. It is 

expected that due to the similar density of harp seal with the other pinnipeds within the AOI, no Level A 

harassment would occur. Using the NMFS 180-dB criterion, the five species with the highest numbers of 

estimated Level A takes are:

• bottlenose dolphin (1-6 individuals/year);

• short-beaked common dolphin (1-4 individuals/year);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (1-5 individuals/year);

• short-finned pilot whale (0-2 individuals/year); and

• striped dolphin (0-2 individuals/year).

For comparison purposes, using the Southall et al. (2007) criteria, and without the application of most 

mitigations, estimated Level A takes are lower for most species, but the top five species are similar:

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (0-7 individuals/year);

• short-beaked common dolphin (0-5 individuals/year);

• bottlenose dolphin (0-2 individuals/year);

• Risso’s dolphin (0-2 individuals/year); and

• striped dolphin (0-1 individuals/year).

The modeling also predicts Level B harassment of all of the marine mammal species except the West 

Indian manatee and the three modeled pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray seal, and harbor seal). Due to the 

conservative nature of the modeling and without consideration of most mitigation, the numbers below 

overestimate take. It is expected that due to the similar density of harp seal with the other pinnipeds 

within the AOI, no Level B harassment would occur. Using the NMFS 160-dB criterion the five species 

with the highest annual Level B take estimates are:

• bottlenose dolphin (92-632 individuals/year);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (119-490 individuals/year)

• short-beaked common dolphin (119-379 individuals/year);

• short-finned pilot whale (1-227 individuals/year); and

• Risso’s dolphin (9-170 individuals/year).

Using both the NMFS 180-dB criterion and the Southall et al. (2007) criteria for the non-airgun HRG

surveys, all seven of the endangered marine mammals are predicted to have essentially zero Level A 

incidental takes. Of the endangered species, sperm whales are estimated to have the highest Level B 

incidental takes (0-12 individuals/year). All of the endangered mysticete whales have estimated Level B 

incidental takes of <1 individual/year, with NARW having the highest estimated take

(0.19-0.87 individuals/year).

In conclusion, it is expected that there would be little or no Level A harassment resulting from 

non-airgun HRG surveys, based on the model predictions and the mitigation included in the proposed 

action. Depending on the operating frequencies and source levels of the electromechanical sources used 
2-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

for a particular survey, the underwater noise may be above the hearing range of marine mammals or 

detectable only at very close range. The most likely and extensive effects of HRG surveys on marine 

mammals would be behavioral responses (Level B harassment). Most acoustic impacts on NARWs (and 

some impacts on most other marine mammals) are expected to be avoided by the NARW time-area 

closure included in the proposed action. Manatees and pinnipeds are unlikely to come into contact with 

active acoustic sound sources, and no acoustic harassment is expected for those species. Because most or 

all Level A harassment would likely be avoided and because of the low numbers of Level B harassments 

predicted, overall impacts on marine mammals from non-airgun HRG surveys are expected to be minor. 

Impacts of Vessel and Equipment Noise

Vessel noise has been observed to elicit a variety of behavioral responses in marine mammals. It is 

conservative to assume that noise associated with survey vessels associated with the proposed activity but 

not actively surveying may, in some cases, elicit behavioral changes in individual marine mammals that 

are in proximity to these vessels. These behavioral changes may include evasive maneuvers such as 

diving or changes in swimming direction and/or speed. Many newer geophysical survey vessels have 

been designed to minimize hydroacoustic noise generated by propulsion machinery and hull movement to 

minimize potential acoustic interference during surveys (e.g., Ramform-class vessels). Because these 

vessels are generally quiet, machinery and other associated propulsion-related noise is transitory and 

generally does not propagate at great distances from the vessel. For most of the time that survey vessels 

are underway, they would be operating their airguns or other active acoustic sound sources; under these 

conditions, Level B incidental takes have already been accounted for in the impact analysis. During those 

periods when active acoustic sound sources are not operating, the potential for Level B harassment from 

vessel noise remains. The proposed action includes a time-area closure for all G&G surveys using 

airguns in the NARW critical habitat and DMAs from November 15 through April 15 and a time-area 

closure in the Southeast and the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMAs from November 1 to April 30. Authorization 

for HRG (non-airgun) surveys in critical habitat areas and in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs 

for NARWs would include additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts 

on NARWs. These measures would be expected to reduce vessel-related noise impacts on this species 

during its seasonal migration and calving/nursing periods. The time-area closure would also reduce 

impacts on other marine mammals during these time periods. Based on the proposed volume of vessel 

traffic associated with project activities within the AOI and the presumption that individuals or groups of 

marine mammals within the AOI may be familiar with various and common vessel-related noises, 

particularly within frequented shipping lanes, the effects of vessel noise on marine mammals within the 

AOI are expected to be negligible to minor. 

Other sound sources associated with the proposed activity include drilling-related equipment noise

during the completion of up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells during the time period 

of the Programmatic EIS. These noise sources may elicit alterations of behavior, i.e., changes in 

swimming direction or speed. However, considering the small number of drilling operations, the 

continuous nature of sounds produced during these activities, and with the mitigation measures in place 

for Alternative A, it is expected that the noise impacts on marine mammals from vessels and equipment

would be minor. 

Impacts of Vessel Traffic

Marine mammals are vulnerable to vessel strikes. Under the proposed action, all authorizations for 

shipboard surveys would include guidance for vessel strike avoidance (see Chapter 2.1.2.1). 

Considering the mitigation measures that would be in place, survey vessels are unlikely to strike marine 

mammals. Seismic survey vessels, which account for most of the vessel traffic in the proposed action, 

travel slowly during surveys. A typical towing speed is 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr), much slower than the speeds 

reported to cause most serious or lethal injuries. During surveys, waters surrounding survey vessels 

would be visually monitored by PSOs for any marine mammals. During transit to and from shore bases

outside the time-area closures for NARW, seismic survey vessels and other survey vessels within critical 

habitat, SMAs, and DMAs are expected to travel at greater speeds. The likelihood of a collision between 

a project-related vessel and a marine mammal within the AOI is considered to be very low because of 

several factors: relatively low vessel speeds (particularly within seasonal restricted areas and inshore 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-23

waterways), the requirement for visual observation during transit on all survey vessels (regardless of 

size), and adherence to vessel operations guidelines for avoidance of vessel strikes with all marine 

mammal species. Vessel traffic impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Aircraft Traffic and Noise

The proposed action scenario includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the possibility of 

helicopter traffic in support of drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Aircraft generate 

noise from their engines, airframe, and propellers, and the physical presence of low-flying aircraft can 

disturb marine mammals because of both the noise and the visual disturbance. Levels of noise received 

underwater from passing aircraft depend on the aircraft’s altitude, the aspect (direction and angle) of the 

aircraft relative to the receiver, receiver depth and water depth, and seafloor type. Because of these 

physical variables and the expected airspeed, exposure of individual marine mammals to aircraft-related 

noise (including both airborne and underwater noise) would be expected to be brief in duration. 

Considering the relatively low level of aircraft activity included in the proposed action, along with the 

short duration of potential exposure noise and visual disturbance, potential impacts from this activity are 

expected to be negligible to minor. 

Impacts of Trash and Debris

Marine debris poses two types of negative impacts on marine mammals: entanglement and ingestion. 

Entanglement is a far more likely cause of mortality to marine mammals than ingestion. Entanglement is 

most common in pinnipeds, less common in mysticete cetaceans, and rare among odontocete cetaceans. 

Entanglement data for mysticete cetaceans may reflect a high interaction rate with active fishing gear 

rather than marine debris.

Impacts on marine mammals from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through 

vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, all authorizations 

for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, impacts are 

expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2 to 7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

Diesel fuel released accidentally into the marine environment may affect marine mammals through 

various pathways: direct contact, inhalation of volatile components, ingestion (directly or indirectly 

through the consumption of fouled prey species), and (for Mysticetes) impairment of feeding by fouling 

of baleen. Cetacean skin is highly impermeable and is not seriously irritated by brief exposure to diesel 

fuel; direct contact is not likely to produce a significant impact. 

A small fuel spill would not be likely to result in the death or life-threatening injury of individual 

marine mammals, or the long-term displacement of these animals from preferred feeding or breeding 

habitats or migratory routes. It is expected that spilled fuel oil or diesel fuel would rapidly disperse on the 

sea surface to a very light sheen and would weather rapidly. The impacts would be negligible to minor. 

2.1.4.3. Impacts on Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.2.3) for Alternative A

Relevant IPFs for sea turtles are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel 

traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

The proposed action includes extensive seismic airgun surveys as well as non-airgun HRG surveys. 

Airguns used during seismic surveys produce low-frequency acoustic pulses that are within the hearing 

range of sea turtles. However, non-airgun HRG surveys would use only electromechanical sources such 

as side-scan sonars; boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders. 

Acoustic signals from electromechanical sources other than boomers and sparkers are not likely to be 
2-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

detectable by sea turtles, and sea turtles are unlikely to hear boomer and sparker pulses unless they are 

very near or beneath a survey vessel. Detailed characteristics of active acoustic sound sources are 

described in Appendix D. 

Seismic Airgun Surveys

Based on the scope of the proposed action, seismic airgun surveys could affect individuals from all 

sea turtle species within the AOI, potentially including hawksbill turtles within the southernmost part of 

the AOI. Subadult and adult turtles may be more likely to be affected by seismic airgun noise than 

post-hatchling turtles, due to the time that the former remain submerged and at depth. Post-hatchling 

turtles generally reside at or near the sea surface and may be less likely to be injured by the sound field 

produced by an airgun array. Seismic surveys in nearshore waters would affect a greater number of 

individual turtles, particularly species other than leatherbacks. Deepwater surveys are likely to affect 

fewer individual turtles but are more likely to affect leatherback turtles, particularly within areas of 

upwelling where individuals may be found in feeding aggregations. Surveys conducted during summer 

sea turtle nesting periods may affect greater numbers of adult turtles, particularly loggerhead, green, and 

leatherback turtles, than surveys conducted during non-nesting periods.

Mitigation measures included in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol include ramp-up of airgun 

arrays, visual monitoring of an acoustic exclusion zone by PSOs, and startup and shutdown requirements 

(Chapter 2.1.3.1). These measures are expected to minimize the potential for injury to sea turtles by 

helping to ensure that they are not present within an acoustic exclusion zone around the airgun array. The 

most likely impacts would be short-term behavioral responses of individuals in proximity to airgun 

arrays. No deaths or life-threatening injuries would be expected. In general, impacts of seismic airgun 

surveys on sea turtles are expected to range from minor to moderate. 

In most areas, seismic airgun surveys would not be expected to cause long-term or permanent 

displacement of sea turtles from preferred coastal habitats. However, seismic airgun surveys occurring 

near heavily used nesting beaches during the nesting season could temporarily displace breeding and 

nesting adult turtles and potentially disrupt time-critical activities. Beaches of southeast Florida have 

been identified as the most important nesting area for loggerhead turtles in the western hemisphere. The 

northern segment of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) borders the AOI, and it has been 

estimated that 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the U.S. occurs there. During the 2010 nesting

season, there were over 31,000 loggerhead nests in Brevard County, where the Archie Carr NWR is 

located. It is likely that large numbers of sea turtles would be present in nearshore waters of Brevard 

County during the nesting season from May 1 to October 31. Many adult females linger near the nesting 

beaches before and between nesting events, resting under rocky ledges and outcrops in inner shelf waters 

for periods of weeks. Depending on factors including the distance of the survey from shore (and local 

factors such as seafloor topography and seafloor substrate that may affect the lateral propagation of 

underwater sound), and the duration and intensity of survey effort in this area, breeding adults, nesting 

adult females, and hatchlings could be exposed to airgun seismic survey-related sound exposures at levels 

of 180 dB re 1 μPa or greater. Potential impacts could include auditory injuries or behavioral avoidance 

that interferes with nesting activities. Hatchlings may be somewhat insulated from the most harmful 

components of the propagated sound field because of their location at or near the sea surface. For surveys 

offshore Brevard County during the nesting season, seismic airgun survey impacts on sea turtles are 

expected to range from minor to moderate. 

Non-Airgun HRG Surveys

Non-airgun HRG surveys would use only electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonar; boomer, 

sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders. Acoustic signals from 

electromechanical sources other than the boomer and sparker are not likely to be detectable by sea turtles, 

whose best hearing is mainly below 1,600 Hz. The effects from these sources on sea turtles are expected 

to range from no effect to negligible, based on the audibility of the source to sea turtles. The boomer and 

sparker have an operating frequency range of 200 Hz–16 kHz and so may be audible to sea turtles. 

However, they have a very short pulse length and a low source level, with a 180 dB radius of less than 

5 m (16 ft) (Appendix D). Therefore, impacts on sea turtles from non-airgun HRG surveys using only 

electromechanical sources are expected to range from negligible to minor. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-25

Impacts of Vessel and Equipment Noise

The G&G activities would generate vessel and equipment noise that could disturb sea turtles or 

contribute to auditory masking. Vessel noise is transitory and generally does not propagate at great 

distances from the vessel. The source levels are too low to cause death, injury, or threshold shifts. 

Because of the uncertain role of hearing in sea turtle ecology, it is unclear whether masking would 

realistically have any effect on sea turtles. Behavioral responses to vessels have been observed but are 

difficult to attribute exclusively to noise rather than to visual or other cues. It is conservative to assume 

that noise associated with survey vessels may elicit behavioral changes in individual sea turtles near these 

vessels. These behavioral changes may include evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in 

swimming direction and/or speed. This evasive behavior is not expected to adversely affect these 

individuals or the population, and so the impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Vessel Traffic

The survey vessels could strike and injure or kill sea turtles. Propeller and collision injuries to sea 

turtles arising from interactions with boats and ships are common and are identified as a threat in several 

species’ recovery plans. However, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for 

vessel strike avoidance (Chapter 2.1.2.1). Survey vessels, which account for most of the project-related 

vessel traffic associated with Alternative A activities, survey at a speed of approximately 4.5 kn 

(8.3 km/hr). In addition, waters surrounding survey vessels would be monitored by visual observers

and/or PSOs for the presence of sea turtles. During transit to and from shore bases, survey vessels are 

expected to travel at greater speeds. However, these vessel movements would be subject to joint BOEMBSEE guidance for vessel strike avoidance, and vessels would be required to reduce speed in certain areas 

to comply with the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule.

Because adult and subadult sea turtles spend most of their lives submerged, a collision between a 

project-related survey vessel and a sea turtle within the AOI is unlikely. In addition, the risk of vessel 

strikes on sea turtles is expected to be minimized due to: (1) the guidelines for vessel strike avoidance 

that would be part of all authorizations for shipboard surveys under the proposed action; (2) the typical 

slow speed of survey vessels; and (3) the use of PSOs to scan the sea surface around survey vessels. 

Vessel traffic impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Aircraft Traffic and Noise

The proposed action scenario includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the possibility of 

helicopter traffic in support of drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Aircraft generate 

noise from their engines, airframe, and propellers. Also, the physical presence of low-flying aircraft can 

disturb sea turtles, particularly those on the sea surface. Behavioral responses to flying aircraft include 

diving or rapid changes in swimming speed or direction. Levels of noise received underwater from 

passing aircraft depend on the aircraft’s altitude, the aspect (direction and angle) of the aircraft relative to 

the receiver, receiver depth and water depth, and seafloor type. Because of these physical variables and 

the expected airspeed, exposure of individual sea turtles to aircraft-related noise (including both airborne 

and underwater noise) would be expected to be brief in duration. Considering the relatively low level of 

aircraft activity included in the proposed action, along with the short duration of potential exposure noise 

and visual disturbance, potential impacts from this activity are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Trash and Debris

Marine debris poses two types of negative impacts on sea turtles: entanglement and ingestion. 

Entanglement is a far more likely cause of mortality to sea turtles than ingestion. Loggerhead turtles have 

been found entangled in a wide variety of materials, including steel and monofilament line, synthetic and 

natural rope, plastic onion sacks, and discarded plastic netting. However, monofilament fishing line 

appears to be the principal source of entanglement for loggerheads in U.S. waters.

Impacts on sea turtles from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, all authorizations for 
2-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, impacts are 

expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

Diesel fuel released accidentally into the marine environment may affect sea turtles through various 

pathways including direct contact, inhalation of the fuel and its volatile components, and ingestion 

(directly or indirectly through the consumption of fouled prey species). Several aspects of sea turtle 

biology and behavior place them at risk, including lack of avoidance behavior, indiscriminate feeding in 

convergence zones, and inhalation of large volumes of air before dives. Studies have shown that direct 

exposure of sensitive tissues (e.g., eyes, nares, other mucous membranes) and soft tissues to diesel fuel or 

volatile hydrocarbons may produce irritation and inflammation. Diesel fuel can adhere to turtle skin or 

shells. Turtles surfacing within or near a diesel release would be expected to inhale petroleum vapors, 

causing respiratory stress. Ingested diesel fuel, particularly the lighter fractions, can be acutely toxic to 

sea turtles.

A small fuel spill would not be likely to result in the death or life-threatening injury of individual 

turtles or hatchlings, or the long-term displacement of adult turtles from preferred feeding, breeding, or 

nesting habitats or migratory routes. It is unlikely that a small diesel fuel spill in the ocean would reach 

turtle nests, which are usually positioned above the high tide line. Therefore, potential impacts on sea 

turtles within the AOI are expected to range from negligible (if the fuel does not contact individual 

turtles) to minor (if individual turtles encounter the dispersed windrows of the surface slick).

2.1.4.4. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds (Chapter 4.2.4) for Alternative A

Applicable IPFs for marine and coastal birds are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment 

noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

The primary potential for impact to marine and coastal birds from airguns and other active acoustic

sound sources is to seabirds and waterfowl that dive below the water surface. Only those species that 

plunge dive are at risk of exposure to these sound sources. Investigations into the effects of airguns on 

seabirds are extremely limited. Based on the downward directionality of the sound generated from 

airguns and the limited study results available, mortality or life-threatening injury is not expected and 

little disruption of behavioral patterns or other non-injurious effects would occur.. Underwater noise

impacts on birds are expected to be negligible to minor for airguns and negligible for noise from 

electromechanical sources.

Impacts of Vessel and Equipment Noise

Vessel traffic and vessel and equipment noise could cause a disturbance to breeding birds if a vessel 

approached too close to a breeding colony. In general, G&G surveys would not occur close enough to 

land to affect marine and coastal bird breeding colonies during survey activities. However, some survey 

vessels (especially for renewable energy and marine minerals projects) would typically transit from a 

shore base to offshore and return daily. The expectation is that this daily vessel transit would occur at one 

of the shore bases identified or at other established ports, which have established transiting routes for 

ingress and egress in the coastal areas and existing vessel traffic. Due to this existing vessel traffic, it is 

not anticipated that marine and coastal birds would roost in adjacent areas, or if they did already roost 

nearby, the addition of survey vessels would not significantly increase the existing vessel traffic. In 

addition, noise generated from the survey vessels would typically dissipate prior to reaching the coastline 

and the nesting habitats of coastal birds. Impacts of vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment 

noise to marine and coastal birds would be negligible to minor. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-27

Impacts of Aircraft Traffic and Noise

The proposed action scenario includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the possibility of 

helicopter traffic in support of drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Aircraft generate 

noise from their engines, airframe, and propellers, and the physical presence of low-flying aircraft can 

disturb marine and coastal birds, including those on the sea surface as well as in flight. Behavioral 

responses to flying aircraft include flushing the sea surface into flight or rapid changes in flight speed or 

direction. These behavioral responses can cause collision with the survey aircraft. It is expected that 

survey aircraft would follow Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance recommending that 

aircraft maintain an altitude of at least 610 m (2,000 ft) when flying over noise sensitive areas such as 

parks, wildlife refuges, waterfowl areas, and wilderness areas. Considering the relatively low level of 

aircraft activity included in the proposed action, it is expected that potential impacts from aircraft traffic

would be negligible to minor. 

Impacts of Trash and Debris

Impacts of trash and debris to marine and coastal birds are expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, all authorizations for 

shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, impacts on 

marine and coastal birds from trash and debris are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

If the accidental fuel spill occurred in offshore waters, there is the potential for oceanic and pelagic 

seabirds such as members of the Alcidae, Sulidae, Phaethontidae, Hydrobatidae, and Procellariidae 

families to be directly and indirectly affected by spilled diesel fuel. Direct impacts would include oiling 

of plumage and ingestion (resulting from preening). Indirect impacts could include oiling of foraging 

habitats and displacement to secondary locations. Impacts are expected to be negligible to minor for 

most bird species, but potentially negligible to moderate for ESA-listed species or species proposed for 

listing such as piping plover, roseate tern, red knot, and Bermuda petrel. 

2.1.4.5. Impacts on Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat (Chapter 4.2.5) for 

Alternative A

Relevant IPFs for fish resources and EFH are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment 

noise, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Potential impacts of active acoustic sound sources (e.g., airguns) on fishes may include behavioral 

responses, masking of biologically important sounds, temporary hearing loss, and physiological effects. 

The proposed action includes extensive seismic airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys using 

electromechanical sources. Based on the scope of the proposed action, it is possible that fishes near an 

airgun array could be exposed to sound levels that could result in temporary hearing loss. The proposed 

action does not include any mitigation measures specifically designed to reduce impacts on fishes, 

although ramp-up during seismic airgun surveys may provide an opportunity for fishes near airgun arrays 

to avoid exposure to high SPLs. Affected species would be expected to either vacate the survey area, 

experience short-term temporary threshold shift (hearing loss), experience masking of biologically 

relevant sounds, show no visible effects, or be completely unaffected. Mortality is very unlikely; 

however, fishes have exhibited alarm responses to airgun noise at levels exceeding 147–151 dB re 1 μPa. 

The potential to disrupt spawning aggregations or schools of fishes important as prey for other fishes and 

marine mammals, when coupled with the mobile nature of the surveys, the temporary (short-term) nature 

of surveying small areas of the seafloor relative to the overall area, and the propensity of fishes to 
2-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

temporarily move away from noise that is affecting them, suggest that the impacts from active acoustic 

sound sources to fisheries resources and EFH would be minor to moderate. 

Impacts of Vessel and Equipment Noise

All vessels produce underwater noise, and it is likely that fishes in the AOI have habituated to this 

noise. Sound sources are below levels that can cause temporary hearing loss or injury. Masking and 

short-term behavior modifications are possible effects. Impacts on fish behavior are expected to be 

short-term and localized to areas of survey vessel activity; the effects would be minor. 

Impacts of Seafloor Disturbance and Drilling Discharges

Several types of G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and 

shallow test wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could physically disturb 

the seafloor and result in localized impacts on demersal fishes and EFH. In addition, drilling discharges

from drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells could result in localized impacts. The total area 

affected would be a negligible percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Because BOEM would 

require prior approval of any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, 

or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures, impacts on sensitive benthic communities such 

as coral, hard/live bottom, chemosynthetic, and deepwater canyon communities are expected to be 

avoided, including the associated demersal fishes and EFH. Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling 

discharges are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

A small fuel spill at the sea surface could have an effect on fish resources and EFH. Numerous 

federally managed species have pelagic eggs and larvae that would be at risk if they encountered a diesel

spill. The EFH most likely to be affected would be pelagic Sargassum. Drifting in windrows or mats, 

Sargassum supports numerous fishes and invertebrates including the young of several federally managed 

species such as greater amberjack, almaco jack, gray triggerfish, blue runner, dolphin, tuna, billfish, and 

wahoo. However, because the exposure of spilled diesel fuel on early life stages and Sargassum is 

expected to last for a day or less and have limited spatial extent, the impacts of a small accidental diesel 

fuel spill from G&G activities would be minor. 

2.1.4.6. Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Fish Species (Chapter 4.2.6) for 

Alternative A

Two marine fish species that occur in the AOI, the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) and the 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), are currently listed as endangered. An endangered 

anadromous fish species potentially occurring in the AOI is the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum), which inhabits rivers along the Atlantic coast but rarely ventures into coastal marine 

waters (USDOC, NMFS, 1998). The NMFS also has evaluated Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) 

for ESA listing, but announced on May 27, 2011, that ESA listing is not warranted for the species at this 

time (Federal Register, 2011f). Bluefin tuna is now designated as a species of special concern. NMFS 

also has recently evaluated two anadromous species – blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife

(Alosa pseudoharengus) – for ESA listing as threatened, but on August 12, 2013, determined that ESA 

listing is not warranted for these species at this time (Federal Register, 2013. NMFS was petitioned 

recently to consider listing scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) and white marlin (Kajikia 

albida) as threatened or endangered. Six DPS were identified for scalloped hammerhead worldwide 

(Miller et al., 2013). One of these, the central and southwest Atlantic DPS, abuts (but does not overlap) 

the southern boundary of the AOI off Florida (latitude 28° N). In addition, in January 2013, NMFS 

determined that the petitions for white marlin do not present substantial scientific information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be warranted (Federal Register, 2013). In November 2012, WildEarth 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-29

Guardians petitioned NMFS to list the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) as endangered throughout its 

entire range, which includes the AOI. In May 2013, NMFS agreed that sufficient scientific data existed to 

consider this listing (Federal Register, 2013).

Relevant IPFs for threatened or endangered fish species are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and 

equipment noise, vessel traffic, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental 

fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Due to their rare occurrence in the AOI, smalltooth sawfish and shortnose sturgeon are unlikely to be 

exposed to active acoustic sound sources, including airguns; impacts are expected to be negligible. The 

Atlantic sturgeon is more likely to be exposed to these sound sources due to their distribution. Impacts 

would be similar to those discussed above for Fish Resources, including behavioral responses, masking of 

biologically important sounds, temporary hearing loss, and physiological effects. Sturgeons do not have 

any known structures in the auditory system that would enhance hearing, and their hearing sensitivity is 

not very great. No mortality or injury is expected. Impacts on Atlantic sturgeon are expected to be 

minor. 

Impacts of Vessel Traffic and Vessel and Equipment Noise

Smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon are all demersal species that are 

unlikely to be affected by vessel and equipment noise (negligible impact). Impacts from vessel traffic on 

all three species are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Trash and Debris

Impacts of trash and debris releases on the water column and benthic environment are expected to be 

avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, 

all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. 

Therefore, impacts from trash and debris on threatened or endangered fishes are expected to be 

negligible. 

Impacts of Seafloor Disturbance and Drilling Discharges

Several types of G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and 

shallow test wells, placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could physically disturb the 

seafloor and result in localized impacts on demersal fishes, which could include the three demersal 

species (smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon). In addition, drilling discharges

from drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells could result in localized smothering and burial 

of benthic communities. The total area of seafloor disturbance in soft bottom areas would be a negligible 

percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Because BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G 

activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures, impacts on demersal fishes and their habitat are expected to be avoided. Impacts 

of seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges are expected to be negligible for all of the listed fish 

species.

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

The three listed demersal species (smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon) are 

the least likely to be affected because a small fuel spill would be unlikely to reach the seafloor or 

contaminate bottom sediments. Because of their life histories, none of the threatened or endangered fish 

species would have sensitive eggs or larvae in the water column of the AOI where they would be exposed 

to accidently spilled diesel fuel. Impacts of an accidental fuel spill are expected to be negligible for all 

five of these species.
2-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2.1.4.7. Impacts on Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.2.7) for Alternative A

Applicable IPFs for commercial fisheries are active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Sounds from active acoustic sound sources such as airguns may result in behavioral changes in some 

fishes. Anthropogenic sound can cause fishes to alter their movements or avoid certain areas. Fish 

exposed to seismic airgun sound typically exhibit an initial startle response, followed by tolerance to the 

sound source and, after a period of time, resumption of normal behavior. Temporary avoidance of or 

movement out of specific areas could result in a short-term, localized reduction in fish catch. The impacts 

on commercial fisheries are expected to be minor. 

Impacts of Vessel Traffic and Vessel Exclusion Zones

For safety reasons, survey operators attempt to keep a zone around the source vessel and its towed 

streamer arrays clear of other vessel traffic. The size of the vessel exclusion zone that would be 

maintained around a source vessel and its towed streamer arrays varies depending on the array 

configuration. The vessel exclusion zones would be temporary, with the duration and areal extent 

dependent on the type of activity. As an example, a typical vessel exclusion zone for a deep penetration 

seismic airgun survey involving a towed array would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km 

(0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 1,021 hectares (ha) (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. The length of time 

that any particular point would be within the vessel exclusion zone would be about 1 hr. Prior to 

conducting a seismic survey, operators would submit information to the local USCG office and the local 

harbormaster for issuance of a Local Notice to Mariners. The Local Notice to Mariners would specify the 

survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements. The G&G vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones may temporarily interrupt fishing activities, including setting of fishing gear. In 

addition, survey vessel traffic has the potential to interfere with commercial fishing operations, especially 

dredges, otter trawls, longlines, and purse seines. Any impacts would be localized and short-term and are 

expected to be minor. 

Impacts of Seafloor Disturbance

Seafloor disturbance could potentially affect commercial fisheries operations within the AOI, 

specifically the potential for damage to bottom-founded fishing gear. However, most passive gears such 

as traps, pots, and bottom longlines are well marked by surface buoys. The total area of seafloor 

disturbance would be a negligible percentage of the seafloor area in the AOI. However, there is a chance 

that a particular seafloor disturbance, no matter how small, may occur within a productive fishing area. 

Seafloor disturbance and its impact to commercial fishing operations and potential effects on commercial 

fishery landings under Alternative A are expected to be limited and localized but potentially overlapping 

with productive fishing grounds and therefore are expected to range from negligible to minor, depending 

on the location.

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on commercial fisheries would depend on the location of the 

spill, in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of 

weathering and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt commercial fishing

operations. However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill 

response involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts on commercial fisheries activities 

from a small diesel fuel spill are expected to range from negligible to minor. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-31

2.1.4.8. Impacts on Recreational Fisheries (Chapter 4.2.8) for Alternative A

Applicable IPFs for recreational fisheries are active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, vessel 

exclusion zones, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Active acoustic sound sources may result in behavioral changes in some fishes. Sound from G&G

activities can cause fishes to alter their movements or avoid certain areas. Fishes exposed to active 

acoustic sound sources typically exhibit an initial startle response, followed by tolerance to the sound 

source and, after a period of time, resumption of normal behavior. Temporary avoidance of or movement 

out of specific areas could result in a short-term, localized reduction in fish catch. The impacts on 

recreational fisheries are expected to be negligible to minor under Alternative A. 

Impacts of Vessel Traffic

Survey vessel traffic may temporarily interrupt recreational fishing activities including the possibility 

of a fishing vessel having to change course or temporarily depart from a preferred fishing location. Any 

impacts would be localized and short-term and are expected to be negligible to minor. 

Impacts of Vessel Exclusion Zones

For safety reasons, survey operators attempt to keep a zone around the source vessel and its towed 

streamer arrays clear of other vessel traffic. The size of the vessel exclusion zone that would be 

maintained around a source vessel and its towed streamer arrays varies depending on the array 

configuration. The vessel exclusion zones would be temporary, with the duration and areal extent 

dependent on the type of activity. As an example, a typical vessel exclusion zone for a deep penetration 

seismic airgun survey involving a towed array would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km 

(0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. The length of time that any 

particular point would be within the vessel exclusion zone would be about 1 hr. Prior to conducting a 

seismic survey, operators would submit information to the local USCG office and the local harbormaster 

for issuance of a Local Notice to Mariners. The Local Notice to Mariners would specify the survey dates 

and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements. The G&G vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones may temporarily interrupt fishing activities, including setting of fishing gear. Impacts 

would be localized and short-term and are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational fishing would depend on the location of the 

spill, in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of 

weathering and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt recreational fishing 

activities. However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill 

response involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts on recreational fisheries activities 

from a small diesel fuel spill are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

2.1.4.9. Impacts on Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.2.9) for Alternative A

Relevant IPFs for recreational resources are vessel exclusion zones, trash and debris, and accidental 

fuel spills.

Impacts of Vessel Exclusion Zones

For safety reasons, survey operators attempt to keep a zone around the source vessel and its towed 

streamer arrays clear of other vessel traffic. The size of the vessel exclusion zone that would be 
2-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

maintained around a source vessel and its towed streamer arrays varies depending on the array 

configuration. The vessel exclusion zones would be temporary, with the duration and areal extent 

dependent on the type of activity. As an example, a typical vessel exclusion zone for a deep penetration 

seismic airgun survey involving a towed array would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km 

(0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. The length of time that any 

particular point would be within the vessel exclusion zone would be about 1 hr. Prior to conducting a 

seismic survey, operators would submit information to the local USCG office and the local harbormaster 

for issuance of a Local Notice to Mariners. The Local Notice to Mariners would specify the survey dates 

and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements. All impacts would be of short duration, and 

potential impacts are rated as negligible. 

Impacts of Trash and Debris

Impacts of trash and debris on recreational resources (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) are expected 

to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In 

addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris 

awareness. Impacts from trash and debris on recreational resources are expected to be negligible to 

minor. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational resources would depend on the location of the 

spill, in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of 

weathering and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt recreational use of some 

areas. However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill 

response involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts on recreational resources from a 

small diesel fuel spill are expected to be negligible to minor. 

2.1.4.10.Impacts on Archaeological Resources (Chapter 4.2.10) for Alternative A

Relevant IPFs for archaeological resources are seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and 

accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Seafloor Disturbance and Drilling Discharges

Several types of G&G survey activities (e.g., anchoring, bottom sampling, drilling of deep 

stratigraphic and shallow test wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) could 

physically disturb the seafloor. In addition, drilling discharges from drilling of deep stratigraphic and 

shallow test wells could result in localized sediment deposition on the seafloor. However, BOEM would 

require site-specific information regarding potential archaeological resources prior to approving any G&G 

activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM would use this information to ensure that impacts on

archaeological resources are avoided. All authorizations for G&G activities that involve 

seafloor-disturbing activities would include requirements for operators to report suspected historic and 

prehistoric archaeological resources to BOEM and take precautions to protect the resource. Therefore, 

impacts on archaeological resources would be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface. Although particulate 

matter contaminated with diesel fuel could sink through the water column, given the small size of the spill 

and the loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and dispersion, a small fuel spill would be unlikely 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-33

to reach the seafloor or contaminate bottom sediments. Impacts on archaeological resources would be 

expected to be negligible. 

2.1.4.11.Impacts on Marine Protected Areas (Chapter 4.2.11) for Alternative A

The MPAs within the AOI include two NMSs, six deepwater MPAs designated by the SAFMC, 

numerous Federal fishery management areas, and a variety of coastal (onshore) MPAs. The IPFs that 

may affect key resources within the MPAs are active acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, seafloor 

disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on benthic communities have been discussed previously and 

are expected to be negligible. Impacts on benthic communities within offshore MPAs would be similar. 

No direct acoustic impacts would be expected on coastal MPAs. However, certain coastal MPAs such as 

the Archie Carr NWR support a high level of sea turtle nesting during the summer months, and the impact

analysis for Alternative A identified seismic airgun surveys as having the potential to displace breeding 

and nesting adult turtles or disrupt time-critical activities. Therefore, for surveys offshore Brevard 

County during the nesting season, acoustic sound sources impacts on MPAs are evaluated as negligible to 

moderate for airguns and negligible to minor for electromechanical sources.

Impacts of Trash and Debris

Impacts of trash and debris on coastal MPAs (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) are expected to be 

avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations. In addition, 

all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness. 

Impacts from trash and debris on MPAs are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Seafloor Disturbance and Drilling Discharges

Seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges have the potential to affect benthic resources within 

offshore MPAs. However, Federal regulations prohibit seafloor-disturbing activities within the two 

NMSs, and BOEM would not authorize such activities within MPAs; therefore, those impacts would not 

take place. Because BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures, impacts on sensitive benthic communities within other MPAs (e.g., coral, hard/live bottom, 

chemosynthetic, and deepwater canyon communities) are expected to be avoided. Impacts of seafloor 

disturbance and drilling discharges under Alternative A would be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

An accidental fuel spill is expected to have negligible impacts on benthic resources within offshore 

MPAs because the spill would float and disperse on the sea surface and is unlikely to reach the seafloor. 

Depending on spill location, a small fuel spill could affect coastal MPAs and has the potential to oil birds. 

However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, impacts are expected to be 

negligible to moderate. 

2.1.4.12.Impacts on Other Marine Uses (Chapter 4.2.12) for Alternative A

The IPFs applicable to other marine uses are vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones, aircraft traffic

and noise, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. Other existing marine uses in the AOI include 

shipping and marine transportation, military range complexes supporting exercises and testing, sand and 

gravel mining, renewable energy development, oil and gas exploration, dredged material disposal, 

research activities from bottom-founded structures, and known sea bottom obstructions.
2-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Impacts of Vessel Traffic and Vessel Exclusion Zones

Vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones have the potential for space-use conflicts with existing 

marine uses such as shipping and marine transportation. For safety reasons, survey operators attempt to 

keep a zone around the source vessel and its towed streamer arrays clear of other vessel traffic. The size 

of the vessel exclusion zone that would be maintained around a source vessel and its towed streamer 

arrays varies depending on the array configuration. The vessel exclusion zones would be temporary, with 

the duration and areal extent dependent on the type of activity. As an example, a typical vessel exclusion 

zone for a deep penetration seismic airgun survey involving a towed array would be approximately 

8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km (0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea 

surface. The length of time that any particular point would be within the vessel exclusion zone would be 

about 1 hr. Prior to conducting a seismic survey, operators would submit information to the local USCG 

office and the local harbormaster for issuance of a Local Notice to Mariners. The Local Notice to 

Mariners would specify the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements. 

Overall, impacts on other marine uses would be of relatively short duration and are expected to be 

negligible to minor. 

Impacts of Aircraft Traffic and Noise

The proposed action scenario includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the possibility of 

helicopter traffic in support of drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Aircraft traffic has the 

potential for space-use conflicts with existing marine uses such as military and NASA use. All aircraft 

flights would originate from existing shore-based facilities and would file flight plans with the FAA 

before departure. Potential use conflicts with military range complexes and civilian space program use

are expected to be avoided through coordination with the DoD and NASA prior to surveys. All 

authorizations for permitted/authorized activities would include BOEM guidance for military and NASA 

coordination. Impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Seafloor Disturbance

Several types of G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, drilling of deep stratigraphic and 

shallow test wells, and placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures) involve seafloor 

disturbance. BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G surveys involving seafloor-disturbing 

activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures. Therefore, conflicts with other marine 

uses of the seafloor (e.g., artificial reef sites, dredged material disposal sites, military use areas, etc.) are 

expected to be avoided and impacts would be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

The impacts of an accidental fuel spill on other marine uses would depend on the location of the spill, 

in addition to the meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which would affect the rate of weathering 

and transport. Response vessel activity could temporarily interrupt other marine uses in some areas. 

However, given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response 

involving multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts on other marine uses from a small diesel 

fuel spill are expected to be negligible. 

2.1.4.13.Impacts on Human Resources and Land Use (Chapter 4.2.13) for 

Alternative A

Applicable IPFs for human resources and land use are onshore support activities and accidental fuel 

spills.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-35

Impacts of Onshore Support Activities

Seismic airgun surveys in support of oil and gas exploration represent over 90,000 hr (3,725 days) of 

vessel activity during the 2013-2020 time period. In addition, non-airgun HRG surveys in support of oil 

and gas exploration represent over 21,000 hr (872 days) of vessel activity during the 2013-2020 time 

period. Non-airgun HRG surveys are typically conducted simultaneous with the airgun surveys; however, 

there may be times when they are conducted separately. Seismic survey vessels for both types of survey

are large, dedicated vessels that can remain offshore for weeks or months, with supply vessel support 

originating from ports along the Atlantic coast. For this analysis, five potential support bases were 

identified in support of oil and gas program seismic survey activity – Norfolk, Virginia; Wilmington, 

North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida.

Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling associated with renewable energy and marine minerals 

projects would operate mainly at specific sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water depths 

less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. Typically, these are smaller vessels that 

would return to their shore base daily. Vessel trips associated for renewable energy areas would be 

divided among several existing ports in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, and Florida. Depending on the location of the renewable energy area, the surveys could operate 

from one of the five larger ports in the AOI, or any of numerous smaller ports along the coast, depending 

on whatever is convenient. A summary of the G&G survey activity for the renewable energy and marine 

minerals programs during the 2013-2020 time period can be found in Tables 3-5 through 3-8. 

Based on the projected level of G&G survey activity and associated demands for shore base space, 

supplies, and services, impacts from onshore activities on human resources and land use under 

Alternative A are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging from 1.2-7.1 bbl. 

A fuel spill would be expected to float, disperse, and weather on the sea surface.

An accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to have minimal to no impact to either the local 

economies or populations of the ports and surrounding communities. Based on the small size of the spill 

in the proposed action scenario, impacts on human resources and land use under Alternative A are 

expected to be negligible.

2.2. ALTERNATIVE B – ADDITIONAL TIME-AREA CLOSURES, GEOGRAPHIC 

SEPARATION OF SIMULTANEOUS SEISMIC AIRGUN SURVEYS, AND USE OF 

PASSIVE ACOUSTIC MONITORING

2.2.1. Description

Alternative B would allow BOEM to authorize G&G activities in support of all program areas – oil 

and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals – throughout the entire AOI. It would include the same 

regulatory requirements and mitigation measures as Alternative A, but it also would include additional 

time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles, establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between 

simultaneously operating deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys, and require the use of PAM as part of 

the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. If BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if operations continue 

during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG surveys using sources at or below 200 kHz, 

effective monitoring technologies that could include PAM would be required. 

2.2.2. Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures in Alternative B would be identical to those previously described 

for Alternative A: 
2-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

• guidance for vessel strike avoidance;

• guidance for marine debris awareness;

• guidance for visual monitoring; 

• avoidance and reporting requirements for historic and prehistoric sites;

• avoidance of sensitive benthic communities; 

• guidance for activities in or near NMSs; 

• guidance for military and NASA coordination; 

• Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol; and

• HRG Survey Protocol (for non-airgun surveys). 

Alternative B would include the additional or revised measures listed below and described in the 

following subsections:

• an expanded time-area closure for NARWs;

• a time-area closure for nesting sea turtles offshore Brevard County, Florida;

• geographic separation on concurrent seismic airgun surveys;

• a Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol with required use of PAM; and

• HRG Survey Protocol with additional monitoring requirements for nighttime or 

operations during reduced visibility.

A summary of the applicability of the time-area closures and mitigation measures is included in 

Table 2-5. 

2.2.2.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales for 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs described in Chapters 2.1.3.1.1 and 2.1.3.2.1

of the Alternative A discussion would be expanded to a continuous 37-km (20-nmi) wide zone extending 

from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI (Figure 2-3). The expanded closure zone would fill 

gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where the Mid-Atlantic U.S. 

SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida that are adjacent to the NARW critical 

habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI. The expanded closure 

area would add 6,881,339 ac (27,848 km2

) to the SMA closure areas described under Alternative A, 

totaling 15,888,503 ac (64,298 km2

), representing 7.5 percent of the total AOI (vs. approximately 4.3% 

under Alternative A).

The purpose of the expanded time-area closure is to prevent certain acoustic impacts on NARW along 

their migration route and calving and nursery grounds. This time-area closure would also provide a 

protective measure for other marine species found in the same areas during closure periods. The SMAs 

do not provide continuous coverage of the NARW migratory route along the Mid-Atlantic coast because 

they focus on areas of heavy ship traffic (including entrances to certain bays and ports). Sightings data 

reviewed by NMFS in developing the ship strike rule indicate that approximately 83 percent of NARW

sightings occur within 37 km (20 nmi) of the coast. The expanded time-area closure under Alternative B 

would form a continuous zone of the same width along the coast of the AOI (Figure 2-3). Although 

NARWs may also use areas farther offshore, this expanded time-area closure is expected to provide 

substantial coverage of the NARW migratory corridor and calving and nursery grounds.

Under the expanded time-area closure, no G&G surveys using air guns would be authorized within 

the NARW critical habitat area from November 15 through April 15, the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast 

U.S. SMAs from November 1 through April 30, the expanded closure areas from November 1 through 

April 30, and the expanded Southeast U.S. SMA from November 15 to April 15. Additionally, G&G 

surveys using airguns would not be allowed in active DMAs. Airgun surveys conducted outside of 

critical habitat, SMAs, or DMAs would be required to remain at a distance such that received levels at 

those boundaries do not exceed the Level B harassment threshold.

HRG operational and monitoring surveys using non-airgun HRG sources such as boomer, sparker, or 

chirp seismic, subbottom profilers; side-scan sonar; and multibeam, swath, and single beam bathymetric 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-37

sonars would be authorized year-round in the AOI, including within NARW critical habitat and SMAs, 

and DMAs, subject to the requirements of the HRG Survey Protocol. Sound sources operating below 

30 kHz will be required to implement additional mitigations in accordance with the HRG Survey 

Protocol. 

2.2.2.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles offshore Brevard County, 

Florida for Alternative B

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31) (Figure 2-3). No airgun surveys 

would be authorized within the closure area during that time. HRG surveys using HRG non-airgun 

sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles would be allowed year-round, including between May 1 

and October 31, within the Sea Turtle Closure Area. Devices operating above 1.6 kHz would likely be 

outside the hearing range of sea turtles. Operational or monitoring surveys typically involve a single 

beam, swath or multibeam, and occasional side-scan sonar. This time-area closure would also provide a 

protective measure for other marine species found in the same areas during closure periods.

The Brevard County time-area closure would include the portion of Brevard County that is within the 

AOI and would extend 11 km (5.9 nmi) offshore (Figure 2-4). The southern border of Brevard County is 

beyond the southern boundary of the AOI. The closure would also extend radially from the northern 

county boundary at the shoreline. The extent is based on acoustic modeling of distances that could 

receive SPLs of 160 dB re 1 μPa from a large airgun array in this area. Supporting calculations are 

provided in Appendix D. 

The purpose of the closure would be to avoid disturbing the large numbers of loggerhead turtles (and 

hatchlings) that are likely to be present in nearshore waters of Brevard County during turtle nesting and 

hatching season. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.3, Brevard County includes some of the world's most 

important nesting beaches for sea turtles. During the 2010 nesting season, there were over 

31,000 loggerhead nests in Brevard County. The Archie Carr NWR, located mainly within Brevard 

County, has been identified as the most important nesting area for loggerhead turtles in the western 

hemisphere. The Archie Carr NWR is critical to the recovery and survival of loggerhead turtles; it has 

been estimated that 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the U.S. occurs in the Archie Carr NWR. 

Nesting densities have been estimated at 625 nests per km (1,000 nests per mi) within the Archie Carr 

NWR. 

The sea turtle time-area closure would overlap with the NARW time-area closure (Figure 2-4). The 

overlapping NARW time-area would be under closure to seismic airgun surveys between May 1 through 

October 31 and again from November 15 through April 15. The area encompassed by the sea turtle 

time-area closure represents 0.15 percent of the AOI. Additionally non-airgun HRG surveys with sources

operating below 1.6 kHz would be restricted within this area from May 1 to October 31 and may require 

additional review and mitigation measures. Between November 15 and April 15, non-airgun HRG 

surveys with sources operating below 30 kHz would need to be determined to be critical to program needs 

to be approved. All G&G surveys would be subject to identified survey protocols, vessel strike

avoidance, active acoustic exclusion zones (if applicable), and other mitigation measures for approval.

2.2.2.3. Geographic Separation between Simultaneous Seismic Airgun Surveys

for Alternative B

Alternative B may establish a 40-km (25-mi) geographic separation distance between the sources of 

simultaneously operating seismic airgun surveys. This is in contrast to Alternative A, which does not 

require any geographic separation of concurrent seismic surveys. The purpose of this measure is to 

provide a corridor between vessels conducting simultaneous surveys where airgun noise is below Level B 

thresholds and approaching ambient levels such that animals may pass through rather than traveling larger 

distances to go around the survey vessels.

The modeling done for this project estimated the largest exposure radii for the 160-dB threshold 

(Level B) for a large airgun array to be approximately 15 km (8 nmi). This 15 km radii only occurred in 

less than 10 percent of the modeled cases, with the more typical radii measured at no more than 10 km 

(5.4 nmi) (Appendix D). In practice, operators typically maintain a separation of about 17.5 km 
2-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

(9.5 nmi) between concurrent surveys to prevent seismic interference. Due to geographic size and 

activity level, industry has, in certain areas such as the North Sea, developed timeshare guidelines to 

address interference problems. However, continued development of data processing capabilities has now 

allowed seismic interference to be addressed, and for the most part, eliminated.

BOEM included a 40-km separation zone within the Draft Programmatic EIS to provide an animal 

movement corridor between simultaneous surveys where airgun noise is below Level B thresholds and 

approaching ambient levels. New information suggests that, in some circumstances, airgun noise can be 

detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet 

it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on marine mammals or other marine 

species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and 

environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not 

apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider 

any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

2.2.2.4. Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol with Required Use of Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring for Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the use of PAM would be required as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol (rather than optional or “encouraged” as in Alternative A). Passive acoustic monitoring would 

be mandatory and would be used year-round throughout the entire AOI. Passive acoustic monitoring has 

been used for over 30 years and is required for all National Science Foundation (NSF) seismic surveys 

and many Navy surveys (Mellinger and Heimlich, 2013). It is considered to be the only currently 

available mitigation technique that can detect marine mammals at night or during reduced visibility (e.g., 

fog, high sea states, darkness). The capabilities of PAM systems have significantly improved and now 

include detection, classification, and localization software capabilities that allow PAM observers to hear a 

marine mammal vocalize, determine its location, and classify species type (Nosal, 2013). Appendix C, 

Section 3.3.2.5 provides a discussion regarding PAM monitoring methods and equipment. The purpose 

would be to improve detection of marine mammals prior to and during seismic airgun surveys so that 

impacts can be avoided by shutting down or delaying startup of airgun arrays until the animals are outside 

the acoustic exclusion zone. By using PAM devices, operators can ramp-up and start/resume a seismic 

survey during times of reduced visibility when such ramp-up otherwise would not be permitted.

2.2.2.5. HRG Survey Protocol with Required Use of Monitoring Technologies 

during Nighttime Operations or if Operations Continue During Periods of 

Reduced Visibility for Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the use of PAM could be required as part of the HRG Survey Protocol under 

certain circumstances. HRG sound sources operating at frequencies at and below 200 kHz may continue 

or begin operations during nighttime or periods of reduced visibility provided that additional monitoring

technology is utilized. In those cases operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion 

zone using available effective monitoring technologies that may also include shipboard lighting, enhanced

vision equipment, night-vision equipment, or PAM; this provision would apply year-round. Appendix C, 

Section 3.3.2.5 provides a discussion regarding PAM monitoring methods and equipment. The purpose 

of using any of the above technologies would be to improve detection of marine mammals prior to and 

during HRG surveys so that impacts could be avoided by shutting down or delaying start-up until the 

animals are outside the acoustic exclusion zone.

2.2.3. Summary of Impacts for Alternative B

Conclusions on impacts associated with Alternative B are further discussed in Chapter 4.3 and 

summarized by resource in the following sections. A comparative summary of impacts is presented in 

Table 2-4. Alternative B would include the same suite of G&G survey types analyzed for Alternative A 

but would add an expanded time-area closure for NARWs; a time-area closure for sea turtles offshore 

Brevard County, Florida; a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-39

Protocol. Like Alternative A, Alternative B would allow for an adaptive management approach at the 

site-specific level that would analyze the best available information and apply additional mitigation, 

depending on the site-specific proposed action.

2.2.3.1. Impacts on Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.3.1) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for benthic communities under Alternative B are the same as for Alternative A: active 

acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel 

spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on benthic communities were rated as negligible under 

Alternative A, and changes in seismic survey timing in the additional closure areas under Alternative B 

would not alter these impacts.

Benthic impacts of trash and debris under Alternative B would be essentially identical to those under 

Alternative A (negligible). Benthic impacts of trash and debris deposition on the seafloor would be 

expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA 

regulations.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges under Alternative B would be essentially the 

same as for Alternative A (negligible to minor for seafloor disturbance and negligible for drilling 

discharges). The additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under 

Alternative B could change the timing of some surveys but would not change the ultimate extent or 

severity of seafloor disturbance or drilling discharge impacts. Because BOEM would require prior 

approval of any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement 

of bottom-founded equipment or structures (including requiring site-specific information), it is expected 

that sensitive benthic resources would be avoided under either alternative.

An accidental fuel spill would be expected to have negligible impacts on benthic communities, and 

this conclusion would be unchanged under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.2. Impacts on Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.3.2) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for marine mammals under Alternative B are the same as those for Alternative A: 

active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash

and debris, and accidental fuel spills. Alternative B includes one additional mitigation measure developed 

specifically to reduce impacts on marine mammals: an expanded time-area closure for NARW. The timearea closure would be expanded to a continuous 37-km (20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay 

to the southern limit of the AOI (Figure 2-3). No G&G surveys using airguns would be authorized 

within the designated NARW critical habitat area from November 15 through April 15, within the 

Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs from November 1 through April 30, within the expanded 

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA from November 1 through April 30, within the expanded Southeast U.S. SMA 

from November 15 through April 15. Certain HRG surveys would be allowed year-round, including 

within NARW critical habitat and SMAs, but HRG sources operating below 30 kHz would be required to 

adhere to time and area restrictions as described in the HRG Survey Protocol. 

The following summary focuses on the effect of the expanded NARW time-area closure with respect 

to marine mammal impacts. The expanded NARW time-area closure would reduce acoustic and vessel 

strike impacts on NARWs and other marine mammals (and other marine species) that may occur within 

the closure area during the specified time frame. By forming a continuous 37-km (20-nmi) wide zone 

extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI, it is expected that the expanded closure 

area would reduce most of the potential risk of impacts on NARWs. Sightings data reviewed by NMFS 

in developing the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule indicate that approximately 83 percent of 

NARW sightings occur within this distance of the coast. However, for marine mammals in general, only 

a small portion of the AOI would be excluded; the expanded closure area would represent 7.5 percent of 

the total AOI vs. approximately 4.3 percent under Alternative A. Therefore, the overall impact level for 

marine mammals would remain approximately the same as for Alternative A (moderate for airguns, 

minor for electromechanical sources).

The time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, Florida, during the sea turtle 

nesting season (May 1 through October 31) would preclude airgun surveys in a small portion of the AOI 

(about 0.15%) and therefore provide an additional protective measure, albeit limited, for marine mammals
2-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

in the area during that time of year. Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys, including a 40-km 

(25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating surveys, may reduce impacts on marine 

mammals from repeated exposure to airgun pulses from multiple surveys in the same area, but the overall 

impact level would remain unchanged. New information suggests that, in some circumstances, airgun 

noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk 

et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on marine mammals 

or other marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific 

NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM 

may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also 

consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any). This evaluation will 

also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any). The required use of 

PAM during seismic airgun surveys is intended to improve detection of vocalizing marine mammals, and 

therefore improve effectiveness of certain mitigation measures (e.g., shut down), but it is difficult to 

quantify any difference in impact level relative to Alternative A. 

Airguns are the main active acoustic sound source that may affect marine mammals; 

electromechanical sources are expected to have relatively little effect, in part because of their frequencies, 

short pulse duration, and narrow beam width (depending on the source). Under Alternative A, impacts 

were evaluated as moderate for airguns and minor for electromechanical sources. Under Alternative B, 

additional mitigation measures (as described in Chapter 2.2) are applied that substantially reduce the 

potential for taking marine mammals. Much of this relates to the expansion of the NARW closure area, 

as this area is also shown to have higher densities of many marine mammal species. The use of PAM, in 

addition to PSOs, would increase the detection of marine mammals and support more effective 

implementation of pre-ramp-up surveys and shutdowns (therefore also reducing take). Further, the 

adaptive management approach would allow for additional mitigation appropriate for the site-specific 

requests. Analyzing the additional Alternative B mitigations collectively lends to a greater ability to limit 

the level of impacts to marine mammals to minor to moderate for airguns and minor for 

electromechanical sources. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise under Alternative B would be essentially the same as those 

under Alternative A (negligible to minor). Vessel noise may, in some cases, elicit behavioral changes 

including evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in swimming direction and/or speed. Based on 

the proposed volume of vessel traffic associated with project activities within the AOI and the assumption 

that marine mammals within the AOI are familiar with common vessel-related noises, vessel noise from 

G&G surveys is not expected to adversely affect individuals or marine mammal populations.

Vessel traffic impacts on marine mammals under Alternative B are expected to be essentially the 

same as under Alternative A (negligible). There is a potential risk that survey vessels could strike and 

injure or kill marine mammals. However, the risk is low because of the typical slow speed of survey 

vessels and the use of visual observers and/or PSOs to scan the sea surface around survey vessels. In 

addition, survey vessels would be required to reduce speed in certain areas to comply with the Right 

Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule.

Impacts of aircraft traffic and noise on marine mammals under Alternative B are expected to be 

essentially the same as under Alternative A (negligible to minor). The physical presence of low-flying 

aircraft can disturb marine mammals, particularly those on the sea surface. Behavioral responses to flying 

aircraft include diving or changes in swimming speed or direction. The exposure of individual marine 

mammals to aircraft-related noise would be expected to be brief in duration and have little or no effect.

Impacts of trash and debris on marine mammals under Alternative B would be essentially identical to 

those under Alternative A (negligible). Impacts would be expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on marine mammals were rated as negligible to minor under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative B. The time-area closures and limits 

on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of surveys in certain 

areas, but would not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these impacts.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-41

2.2.3.3. Impacts on Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.3.3) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for sea turtles under Alternative B are the same as those for Alternative A: active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and 

debris, and accidental fuel spills.

Alternative B includes one additional mitigation measure developed specifically to reduce impacts on 

sea turtles: a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, Florida, during the sea 

turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be authorized within the 

closure area during this time. HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside of the hearing range of sea 

turtles (>1.6 kHz) would be allowed year-round in the sea turtle closure area.

The other additional measures included in Alternative B are an expanded time-area closure for 

NARWs, a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating deep-penetration 

seismic airgun surveys, and required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. The 

expanded NARW closure would affect a relatively small area (7.5% of the AOI vs. approximately 4.3% 

under Alternative A) would not substantially change impacts on sea turtles. Limits on concurrent seismic 

airgun surveys may reduce impacts on sea turtles from repeated exposure to airgun pulses from multiple 

surveys in the same area, but the overall impact level would remain unchanged. Additionally, new 

information suggests that, in some circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the 

sound source, such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound 

at these distances has any effect on marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this 

measure at the site-specific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information 

available at that time. BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These 

subsequent evaluations will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys 

(if any). This evaluation will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted 

surveys (if any).The required use of PAM during seismic airgun surveys is intended to improve detection 

of vocalizing marine mammals but would not improve detection of sea turtles, and would not affect any 

of the impact conclusions for them.

Airguns are the main active acoustic sound source that may affect sea turtles; electromechanical 

sources are expected to have little or no detectable effect on sea turtles, based on the limited audibility of 

these sources to sea turtles. Under Alternative A, impacts of airguns on sea turtles were evaluated as 

ranging from negligible to minor for most areas and minor to moderate for heavily used nesting beaches 

during the nesting season. Under Alternative B, the Brevard County time-area closure would reduce the 

extent, severity, and/or timing of noise-related impacts on sea turtles within inner shelf waters off Brevard 

County, and reduce the possibility of temporarily displacing breeding and nesting adult turtles or 

disrupting time-critical activities. The impacts of active acoustic sound sources would be reduced to 

negligible to minor. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise on sea turtles under Alternative B are expected to be 

essentially the same as under Alternative A (negligible). The most likely effects of vessel noise on sea 

turtles would include behavioral changes and possibly auditory masking. These impacts would not be 

expected to adversely affect individuals or the population. The time-area closures and limits on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of surveys in certain 

areas, but would not alter the severity or extent of these impacts.

Vessel traffic impacts on sea turtles under Alternative B are expected to be essentially the same as 

under Alternative A (negligible). There is a potential risk that survey vessels could strike and injure or 

kill sea turtles. However, the risk is low because of the typical slow speed of survey vessels and the use 

of visual observers and/or PSOs to scan the sea surface around survey vessels.

Impacts of aircraft traffic and noise on sea turtles under Alternative B are expected to be essentially 

the same as under Alternative A (negligible). The physical presence of low-flying aircraft can disturb sea 

turtles, particularly those on the sea surface. Behavioral responses to flying aircraft include diving or 

rapid changes in swimming speed or direction. The exposure of individual sea turtles to aircraft-related 

noise would be expected to be brief in duration and have little or no effect.

Impacts of trash and debris under Alternative B would be essentially identical to those under 

Alternative A (negligible). It is expected that impacts of trash and debris would be avoided through 

vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on sea turtles were rated as negligible to minor under Alternative A 

and would be essentially the same under Alternative B. The time-area closures and limits on concurrent 
2-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of surveys in certain areas but would 

not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these impacts.

2.2.3.4. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds (Chapter 4.3.4) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for marine and coastal birds under Alternative B are the same as those for 

Alternative A: active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic

and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on marine and coastal birds under Alternative B are 

expected to be the same as for Alternative A (negligible to minor for airguns, negligible for 

electromechanical sources). Only those bird species that plunge dive could be exposed to underwater 

noise, and little or no impact is expected. The additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent 

seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of surveys in certain areas but would 

not alter the severity or extent of impacts.

Impacts of vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment noise to marine and coastal birds were 

rated as negligible to minor under Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative B. 

In general, G&G surveys would not occur close enough to land to affect marine and coastal bird breeding 

colonies during survey activities. The additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic

airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of surveys in certain areas but would not alter 

the severity or extent of impacts.

Impacts of aircraft traffic and noise under Alternative B would be essentially the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible to minor). Alternative B includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and the 

possibility of helicopter traffic in support of drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. Aircraft 

generate noise from their engines, airframe, and propellers, and the physical presence of low-flying 

aircraft can disturb marine and coastal birds, including those on the sea surface as well as in flight. 

Considering the relatively low level of aircraft activity included in the proposed action, little or no impact

on birds would be expected.

Impacts of trash and debris under Alternative B would be essentially identical to those under 

Alternative A (negligible). Impacts of trash and debris would be expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on birds were rated as negligible to minor for most bird species, but 

negligible to moderate for listed species and those proposed for listing such as piping plover, roseate 

tern, red knot, and Bermuda petrel. Under Alternative B, the risk of an accidental fuel spill would be less 

because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips, however the overall impact rating 

remains unchanged. A change in survey scheduling due to the additional closure areas and limits on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these impacts under 

Alternative B.

2.2.3.5. Impacts on Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat (Chapter 4.3.5) for 

Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for fish resources and EFH under Alternative B are the same as those for 

Alternative A: active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, seafloor disturbance, drilling 

discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on fish resources and EFH would be essentially the same as 

those for Alternative A (minor to moderate). The time-area closures would provide a protective measure 

for other marine species found in the same areas during closure periods. Potential impacts of airguns on 

fishes may include behavioral responses, masking of biologically important sounds, temporary hearing 

loss, and physiological effects. No mortality or injury is expected. A change in seismic survey timing in 

the additional closure areas would not substantially alter these impacts.

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise under Alternative B would be essentially the same as those for 

Alternative A (minor). All vessels produce underwater noise, and it is likely that fishes in the AOI have 

habituated to this noise. Sound sources are below levels that can cause temporary hearing loss or injury. 

Masking and short-term behavior modifications are possible effects. Impacts on fish behavior are 

expected to be short-term and localized to areas of survey vessel activity.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-43

Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges under Alternative B would be essentially the 

same as for Alternative A (negligible). The additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent 

seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of some surveys but would not 

change the ultimate extent or severity of seafloor disturbance or drilling discharge impacts. Because 

BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, 

drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures, it is expected that sensitive 

benthic EFH resources would be avoided under either alternative.

An accidental fuel spill at the sea surface could have an effect on the planktonic early life stages of 

fishes and Sargassum; however, the effects would be expected to last for a day or less and have limited 

spatial extent, and therefore are rated as minor. A change in survey scheduling due to the additional 

closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the risk, severity, or extent 

of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.6. Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Fish Species (Chapter 4.3.6) for 

Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for threatened or endangered fish species under Alternative B are the same as those for 

Alternative A: active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, trash and debris, 

seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources under Alternative B would be essentially the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible for smalltooth sawfish and shortnose sturgeon and minor for Atlantic sturgeon. 

A change in seismic survey timing due to the additional closure areas and limits on concurrent surveys 

would not substantially alter these impacts.

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise under Alternative B would be essentially the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible for smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon). A change in 

seismic survey timing due to the additional closure areas and limits on concurrent surveys would not 

substantially alter these impacts. Impacts of vessel traffic on all three listed fish species would be 

essentially the same as for Alternative A (negligible). 

Impacts of trash and debris under Alternative B would be essentially identical to those under 

Alternative A (negligible). Impacts of trash and debris in the water column and on the seafloor would be 

expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA 

regulations.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges under Alternative B would be the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible). The additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun

surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of some surveys but would not change the ultimate 

extent or severity of seafloor disturbance impacts. Because BOEM would require prior approval of any 

G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of 

bottom-founded equipment or structures (including requiring site-specific information), sensitive benthic 

habitats used by smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, or Atlantic sturgeon would be avoided under 

either alternative.

Potential impacts of an accidental fuel spill are expected to be negligible for all of the listed fish 

species under Alternative B, the same as for Alternative A. The three listed demersal species (smalltooth 

sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon) are the least likely to be affected because a small fuel 

spill would be unlikely to reach the seafloor or contaminate bottom sediments. Because of their life 

histories, none of the listed fish species would have sensitive eggs or larvae in the water column of the 

AOI where they would be exposed to accidently spilled diesel fuel. A change in survey scheduling due to 

the additional closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the risk, 

severity, or extent of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.7. Impacts on Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.3.7) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for commercial fisheries under Alternative B are the same as those for Alternative A: 

active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, vessel exclusion zones, seafloor disturbance, and accidental 

fuel spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on commercial fisheries would be similar to those for 

Alternative A (minor). Airguns may result in behavioral changes (e.g., avoidance) in some fishes that 
2-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

could result in a localized and temporary decrease in catchability of one or more commercial fish species. 

Under Alternative B, seismic airgun survey activities would be precluded from the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) NARW time-closure areas for 6 months of the year (November 1 through April 30). However, 

since this additional closure area is only a small portion of the AOI (3.3%), the impacts would not be 

substantially different.

Impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones would be similar to those for Alternative A 

(minor). Vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones may temporarily interrupt fishing activities, including 

setting of fishing gear. Under Alternative B, G&G seismic airgun survey activities would be precluded 

from the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area for 6 months of the year. Since this additional closure 

area is only a small portion of the AOI (3.3%), the impacts would not be substantially different.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance under Alternative B would be essentially the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible to minor). This impact specifically refers to the potential for damage to 

bottom-founded fishing gear. The additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun

surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of some surveys but would not change the ultimate 

extent or severity of seafloor disturbance impacts.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on commercial fisheries were rated as negligible to minor under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative B. Based on the size of the spill in the 

proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not expected. 

A change in survey timing due to the additional closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun

surveys would not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.8. Impacts on Recreational Fisheries (Chapter 4.3.8) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for recreational fisheries under Alternative B are the same as those for Alternative A: 

active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, vessel exclusion zones, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on recreational fisheries would be similar to those for 

Alternative A (negligible to minor). Airguns may result in behavioral changes (e.g., avoidance) in some 

fishes that could result in a localized and temporary decrease in catchability of one or more recreational 

fish species. Under Alternative B, seismic airgun survey activities would be precluded from the 

additional 37-km (20-nmi) NARW time-closure areas for 6 months of the year (November 1 through 

April 30). However, since this additional closure area is only a small portion of the AOI (3.3%), the 

impacts would not be substantially different.

Survey vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones may temporarily interrupt recreational fishing

activities. The impacts under Alternative B would be similar to those for Alternative A (negligible to

minor for vessel traffic and negligible for vessel exclusion zones). Under Alternative B, G&G seismic

survey activities would be precluded from the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area for 6 months of the 

year, and other survey activity would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce 

impacts on NARWs. This Protocol could result in altered timing of G&G surveys, which are typically 

short in duration, but would not be expected to change the extent or severity of recreational fishing 

impacts from survey vessel traffic or vessel exclusion zones, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.8.2 as 

ranging from negligible to minor. 

Seasonal recreational fishing activities in this region of the AOI would no longer have the potential 

for additional vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones associated with G&G survey activities during the 

closure period. However, since this additional closure area is only a small portion of the AOI (3.3%), the 

impacts would not be substantially different.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on recreational fisheries were rated as negligible to minor under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative B. Based on the size of the spill in the 

proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not expected. 

A change in survey timing due to the additional closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun

surveys would not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.9. Impacts on Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.3.9) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for recreational resources under Alternative B are the same as those for Alternative A: 

vessel exclusion zones, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-45

Potential impacts of vessel exclusion zones under Alternative B would be similar to those for 

Alternative A (negligible). The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B could 

change the timing of seismic airgun surveys and the associated vessel exclusion zones in the closure 

areas. However, the additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not significantly 

alter recreational opportunities since the added closure times in most of the AOI are not high-use periods 

for recreational opportunities because of poor weather. The sea turtle time-area closure offshore Brevard 

County, Florida, would apply during warmer months (May 1 through October 31) and may slightly 

reduce the potential for vessel exclusion zones to interfere with offshore recreational uses.

Impacts of trash and debris on recreational resources (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) under 

Alternative B would be essentially the same as those under Alternative A (negligible to minor). It is 

expected that impacts would be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and 

USEPA regulations.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on recreational resources under Alternative B would be essentially 

the same as those for Alternative A (negligible to minor). A change in survey scheduling due to the 

additional closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the risk, severity, 

or extent of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.10.Impacts on Archaeological Resources (Chapter 4.3.10) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for archaeological resources under Alternative B are the same as those for 

Alternative A: seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges under Alternative B would be essentially the 

same as for Alternative A (negligible). The additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent 

seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of some surveys but would not 

change the risk of impacts on archaeological resources. Because BOEM would require prior approval of 

any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of 

bottom-founded equipment or structures, it is expected that impacts on archaeological resources would be 

avoided under either alternative.

An accidental fuel spill is expected to have negligible impacts on archaeological resources, and this 

conclusion would be unchanged under Alternative B. A change in survey scheduling due to the 

additional closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the risk, severity, 

or extent of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.11.Impacts on Marine Protected Areas (Chapter 4.3.11) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for MPAs under Alternative B are the same as those for Alternative A: active acoustic

sound sources, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on MPAs would be negligible to minor for both airguns and 

electromechanical sources. These impacts are reduced from those for Alternative A, which were 

negligible to moderate for airguns and negligible to minor for electromechanical sources. Most MPAs 

would not be affected at all. The highest impact ratings under Alternative A were based on the potential 

for airgun impacts on sea turtle nesting at the Archie Carr NWR, which would be largely avoided under 

Alternative B. 

Impacts of trash and debris on MPAs (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) under Alternative B would 

be essentially identical to those under Alternative A (negligible). It is expected that impacts would be 

avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges under Alternative B would be the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible). Federal regulations prohibit seafloor-disturbing activities within the two 

NMSs, and BOEM would not authorize such activities within MPAs; therefore, those impacts would not 

take place. Because BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures, impacts on sensitive benthic communities within other MPAs (e.g., coral, hard/live bottom, 

chemosynthetic, and deepwater canyon communities) are expected to be avoided. The additional 

time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the 

timing of some surveys but would not change the ultimate extent or severity of these impacts. It is 
2-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

expected that impacts on sensitive benthic resources associated with MPAs would be avoided under either 

alternative.

An accidental fuel spill is expected to have negligible to moderate impacts on MPAs, and this 

conclusion would be unchanged under Alternative B. Based on the small size of the spill in the proposed 

action scenario, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not expected. A change in 

survey scheduling due to the additional closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys 

would not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.12.Impacts on Other Marine Uses (Chapter 4.3.12) for Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for other marine uses under Alternative B are the same as those for Alternative A: 

vessel traffic, vessel exclusion zones, aircraft traffic and noise, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel 

spills.

Impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones under Alternative B would be similar to those for 

Alternative A (negligible to minor). Vessel traffic has the potential for space-use conflicts with existing 

marine uses such as shipping and marine transportation, but any impacts would be of relatively short 

duration. However, prior to conducting a seismic airgun survey, operators would submit information to 

the local USCG office and the local harbormaster for issuance of a Local Notice to Mariners specifying 

the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements. Because the additional 

closure area under Alternative B would be only a small portion of the AOI (3.3%), the impacts would not 

change substantially from those analyzed for Alternative A.

Impacts of aircraft traffic and noise under Alternative B would be essentially the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible). The proposed action scenario includes one or two aeromagnetic surveys and 

the possibility of helicopter traffic in support of drilling of deep stratigraphic and shallow test wells. 

Aircraft traffic has the potential for space-use conflicts with existing marine uses such as military and 

NASA use. However, all issued permits or authorizations for G&G activities would include BOEM 

guidance for military and NASA coordination, and potential use conflicts are expected to be avoided 

through coordination with the appropriate military commands and NASA prior to surveys.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance under Alternative B would be essentially the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible). Because BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G activities 

involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures, it is 

expected that conflicts with other marine uses of the seafloor (e.g., artificial reef sites, dredged material 

disposal sites, military use areas, etc.) would be avoided. The additional time-area closures and limits on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of some surveys, but 

would not change the ultimate extent or severity of seafloor disturbance impacts.

An accidental fuel spill is expected to have negligible impacts on other marine uses, and this 

conclusion would be unchanged under Alternative B. If a small diesel spill were to occur, it could 

interrupt or interfere with existing uses in a small area for a short time, but given the small size of the spill 

in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not expected. A 

change in survey scheduling due to the additional closure areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun

surveys would not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these impacts under Alternative B. 

2.2.3.13.Impacts on Human Resources and Land Use (Chapter 4.3.13) for 

Alternative B

Relevant IPFs for human resources and land use under Alternative B are the same as those for 

Alternative A: onshore support activities and accidental fuel spills.

Based on the projected level of G&G survey activity and associated demands for shore base space, 

supplies, and services, impacts from onshore activities on human resources and land use under 

Alternative B would be expected to be the same as under Alternative A (negligible). The additional 

time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the 

timing of some surveys but would not substantially change the level of onshore support activities or the 

resulting impacts.

An accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to have minimal to no impact to either the local 

economies or populations of the ports and surrounding communities. Based on the accidental diesel fuel 

release scenario, impacts on human resources and land use under Alternative B would be expected to be 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-47

the same as under Alternative A (negligible). A change in survey scheduling due to the additional closure 

areas and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the risk, severity, or extent of these 

impacts under Alternative B. 

2.3. ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION FOR OIL AND GAS, STATUS QUO FOR 

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND MARINE MINERALS G&G ACTIVITY

2.3.1. Description

Under Alternative C, no G&G activities associated with oil and gas exploration (except for remote 

sensing from satellites) would occur in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. Authorizations for

G&G activities conducted in support of renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

continue to occur on a project site-specific basis. Use of airguns for HRG surveys was not considered in 

this alternative.

The G&G activities expected to be conducted in support of renewable energy development in the AOI 

during the time period covered by the Programmatic EIS are discussed in Chapter 3.3. Under the 

renewable energy program (30 CFR part 585), the need for G&G surveys in support of site 

characterization and foundation studies are part of a developer’s planning to secure a commercial 

competitive or non-competitive lease on the OCS. There are several OCS plans that are part of the 

renewable energy program, the approval of any of which could result in G&G activities such as 

geophysical and geotechnical surveys for site assessment and renewable energy facility development. At 

present, no general activity, site assessment, or Construction and Operations Plans for renewable energy 

facilities have been filed with BOEM for the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. Specific locations 

of future G&G surveys for renewable energy sites are not known at this time. However, for this 

programmatic analysis, the general areas for renewable energy projects during the time period of the 

Programmatic EIS have been estimated in terms of numbers of OCS lease blocks offshore Delaware, 

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The distance from shore for a 

wind energy facility is generally defined at the outward limit of its economic viability, currently about 

46 km (25 nmi) from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water depth.

The G&G activities expected to be conducted in support of marine minerals uses in the AOI during 

the time period covered by the Programmatic EIS are discussed in Chapter 3.4. Under Section 11 of the 

OCSLA, BOEM may authorize G&G prospecting for non-energy marine minerals on the OCS, except in 

the case that another Federal agency is performing the survey. Other surveys may occur pursuant to 

Section 8(k) of the OCSLA concerning use of OCS and resources. Prospecting for and use of sand or 

gravel in State waters is under jurisdiction of the COE, and G&G surveys are permitted under the NWP 

Program administered by each district office if it meets the terms, conditions, and any regional conditions 

of the NWP, and any additional coastal zone management or Section 401 water quality requirements. The 

G&G surveys for the marine minerals program have historically occurred (1) under cooperative 

agreements where State or academic researchers, funded by this Agency, regionally identified and 

assessed potential offshore sand resources; and (2) under prospecting authorizations and/or in support of 

non-competitive leasing in advance of and following dredging operations. Exact G&G survey locations 

and durations are not known at this time. However, sand and gravel source areas (borrow areas) are 

typically located in water depths between 10 and 30 m (33 and 98 ft). Much of the G&G survey activity 

is expected to occur in the area of known sand resources within or near existing borrow areas offshore the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic states (see Chapter 4.2.12.3 for locations).

2.3.2. Mitigation Measures for Alternative C

At a programmatic level, there are no mitigation measures that apply to G&G activities conducted in 

support of renewable energy development; however, best management practices were documented in the 

Programmatic EIS for the renewable energy program (USDOI, MMS, 2007a, page 2-20). A NEPA

evaluation is part of the approval process for OCS plans, without exception, under the renewable energy 

program. A proposed action at a specific location, tool type, and intensity of G&G activity are subjected 

to evaluation. The consultations required under environmental law for protected species are part of the 

NEPA evaluation. Through the NEPA process, BOEM may identify mitigation measures to 

avoid/minimize environmental impacts during G&G surveys. Mitigation measures may be implemented 
2-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

as a condition for OCS plan approval, or as terms or stipulations for a lease. Additional mitigation 

measures may be required as a result of consultations under the ESA or MMPA.

Similarly, at a programmatic level, there are no mitigation measures that apply to G&G activities 

under the marine minerals program. Under Section 11 of the OCSLA, BOEM may authorize G&G 

prospecting for non-energy marine minerals, except in the case that another Federal agency is performing 

the survey on the OCS. BOEM may separately authorize G&G surveys related to the use of marine 

minerals as well related to Section 8(k). Before authorizing any proposed G&G activity, BOEM 

undertakes the necessary environmental review, including preparation of a NEPA document and 

consultations for protected species. Through the NEPA process, BOEM may identify mitigation 

measures to avoid/minimize environmental impacts during G&G surveys. Mitigation measures may be 

implemented as a condition for survey authorization.

2.3.3. Summary of Impacts for Alternative C

Conclusions on impacts associated with Alternative C are further discussed in Chapter 4.4. Under 

Alternative C, the impacts associated with G&G activities in support of oil and gas exploration would not 

occur. The incremental contribution of these activities to cumulative effects would also be eliminated. 

Authorizations and post-lease G&G activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals use 

would continue to occur on a project site-specific basis under Alternative C, and the impacts are 

summarized by resource in the following sections. A comparative summary of impacts is presented in 

Table 2-4. 

2.3.3.1. Impacts on Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.4.1) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for benthic communities under Alternative C are active acoustic sound sources, trash

and debris, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. Because Alternative C would not include 

seismic airgun surveys or COST wells or shallow drilling in pursuit of oil and gas research or 

stratigraphic tests, airguns would be eliminated as an active acoustic sound source and drilling discharges

would be eliminated as an IPF.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources on benthic communities were rated as negligible under 

Alternative A. Under Alternative C, removal of airguns as an acoustic source would eliminate any 

benthic impacts from that type of acoustic source. Electromechanical sources are expected to have 

negligible impacts on benthic communities.

Benthic impacts of trash and debris under Alternative C would be essentially identical to those under 

Alternative A (negligible). Benthic impacts of trash and debris deposition on the seafloor would be 

expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA 

regulations.

The extent of seafloor disturbance would be reduced slightly under Alternative C as compared with 

Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include bottom sampling would 

be associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The elimination of G&G

surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom 

samples taken. The total area of seafloor disturbance in soft bottom areas would be a very small 

percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Impacts of seafloor disturbance under Alternative C are 

expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on benthic communities were rated as negligible under Alternative A 

and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill would be less 

because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.2. Impacts on Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.4.2) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for marine mammals under Alternative C are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and 

equipment noise, vessel traffic, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. Because Alternative C would 

not include seismic airgun surveys or aeromagnetic surveys, airguns would be eliminated as an active 

acoustic sound source, and aircraft traffic and noise would be eliminated as an IPF. In addition, certain 

continuous noise sources, such as equipment noise from drilling activities, would be eliminated.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-49

Under Alternative C, the only active acoustic sound sources would be the electromechanical 

equipment used during HRG surveys. Electromechanical sources include side-scan sonars; boomer, 

sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders, some of which are expected to be 

beyond the functional hearing range of marine mammals or would be detectable only at very close range. 

Detailed characteristics of active acoustic sound sources are described in Appendix D. Use of airguns as 

part of HRG surveys was not considered in this alternative.

Based on the scope of the renewable energy and marine minerals activities that could reasonably be 

assumed to occur under Alternative C, any marine mammal species within the AOI could be affected. 

However, based on the analysis in Appendix E, it is unlikely that the West Indian manatee or the three 

modeled pinniped species (gray seal, harbor seal, and hooded seal) would be affected because of their low 

densities within the AOI. It is expected that due to the similar low density of harp seal within the AOI, 

they would not be affected. In addition, marine mammals inhabiting primarily shelf-edge or deepwater

habitats (e.g., sperm whales, spinner dolphins, etc.) would be unlikely to be exposed to noise from HRG

surveys to support renewable energy or marine minerals projects because these surveys would be limited 

to relatively nearshore waters. Renewable energy surveys are expected to occur in waters less than 40 m 

(131 ft) deep, and marine minerals surveys are expected to occur in waters less than 30 m (98 ft) deep.

If it is assumed that all of the renewable energy and marine minerals HRG surveys analyzed under 

Alternative A were conducted between 2012 and 2020 through project site-specific authorizations under 

Alternative C, the incidental take estimates provided previously in Chapter 2.1.4.2 for non-airgun HRG 

surveys would be a reasonable estimate of potential impacts. The modeling predicts low numbers of 

Level A harassment (a few individuals per year) for each marine mammal species except the West Indian 

manatee and the three modeled pinnipeds (all values are zero due to low densities in the AOI). It is 

expected that due to the similar density of harp seal with the other pinnipeds within the AOI, they would 

not be affected. The modeling also predicts Level B harassment of each marine mammal species except 

the West Indian manatee and the three modeled pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray seal, and harbor seal), with 

numbers ranging up to several hundred individuals per year (e.g., 92-632 individuals/year for bottlenose 

dolphin, the species with the highest numbers). All seven of the endangered marine mammal species are 

predicted to have essentially zero Level A incidental takes using both NMFS 180-dB criterion and the 

Southall et al. (2007) criteria. Of the endangered species, the highest estimated Level B incidental takes 

are estimated for the sperm whale (0-12 individuals/year). All of the endangered mysticete whales have 

estimated Level B incidental takes of <1 individual/year, with the highest being NARW

(0.19-0.87 individuals/year).

In conclusion, it is expected that there would be little or no Level A harassment resulting from 

non-airgun HRG surveys, based on the model predictions and the mitigation or application of 

best-management practices that would be expected to be required. Depending on the operating 

frequencies and source levels of the electromechanical sources used for a particular survey, the 

underwater noise may be above the hearing range of marine mammals or detectable only at very close 

range. The most likely and extensive effects of HRG surveys on marine mammals would be behavioral 

responses (Level B harassment). Manatees and pinnipeds are unlikely to come into contact with active 

acoustic sound sources, and no acoustic harassment is expected for those species. Because most or all 

Level A harassment would likely be avoided and because of the low numbers of Level B harassments 

predicted, overall impacts on marine mammals from non-airgun HRG surveys are expected to be minor. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise under Alternative C would be essentially the same as those 

under Alternative A (negligible to minor). Vessel noise may, in some cases, elicit behavioral changes 

including evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in swimming direction and/or speed. Based on 

the proposed volume of vessel traffic associated with project activities within the AOI and the assumption 

that marine mammals within the AOI are familiar with common vessel-related noises, vessel noise from 

G&G surveys is not expected to adversely affect marine mammal individuals or populations.

Vessel traffic impacts on marine mammals under Alternative C are expected to be essentially the 

same as under Alternative A (negligible). There is a potential risk that survey vessels could strike and 

injure or kill marine mammals. However, the risk is low because of the typical slow speed of survey 

vessels and the expected use of visual observers and possible use of PSOs to scan the sea surface around 

survey vessels. In addition, survey vessels would be required to reduce speed in certain areas to comply 

with the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule.
2-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Impacts of trash and debris on marine mammals under Alternative C would be essentially identical to 

those under Alternative A (negligible). Impacts would be expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on marine mammals were rated as negligible to minor under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill 

would be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.3. Impacts on Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.4.3) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for sea turtles under Alternative C are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and 

equipment noise, vessel traffic, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. Because Alternative C would 

not include seismic airgun surveys or aeromagnetic surveys, airguns would be eliminated as an active 

acoustic sound source, and aircraft traffic and noise would be eliminated as an IPF. Additionally, the use 

of airgun sources as part of HRG surveys was not considered in this alternative.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources were rated as negligible to moderate under Alternative A, 

with the highest impact levels based on the potential disturbance of sea turtles near heavily used nesting 

beaches. With the elimination of airguns as a source, HRG surveys of renewable energy and marine 

minerals sites would use only electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonar; boomer, sparker, and 

chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders. Acoustic signals from electromechanical 

sources other than the boomer and sparker subbottom profiler are not likely to be detectable by sea turtles, 

whose best hearing is mainly below 1,600 Hz. The sources are expected to have little or no detectable 

effect on sea turtles, based on the audibility of the source to sea turtles. Boomer and sparker subbottom 

profilers emit frequencies that are within the presumed hearing range of sea turtles; however source levels 

are sufficiently low as to ensonify only a limited (5-m [16-ft]) radius around the source. Therefore, 

impacts on sea turtles from HRG surveys using only electromechanical sources are expected to be 

negligible. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise on sea turtles under Alternative C are expected to be 

essentially the same as under Alternative A (negligible). The most likely effects of vessel noise on sea 

turtles would include behavioral changes and possibly auditory masking. These impacts would not be 

expected to adversely affect individuals or the population.

Vessel traffic impacts on sea turtles under Alternative C are expected to be essentially the same as 

under Alternative A (negligible). There is a potential risk that survey vessels could strike and injure or 

kill sea turtles. However, the risk is low because of the typical slow speed of survey vessels and the 

expected use of visual observers and possible use of PSOs to scan the sea surface around survey vessels.

Impacts of trash and debris on sea turtles under Alternative C would be essentially identical to those 

under Alternative A (negligible). Impacts would be expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ 

required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on sea turtles were rated as negligible to minor under Alternative A 

and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill would be less 

because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.4. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds (Chapter 4.4.4) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for marine and coastal birds under Alternative C are active acoustic sound sources, 

vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. Because 

Alternative C would not include seismic airgun surveys or aeromagnetic surveys, airguns would be 

eliminated as an active acoustic sound source, and aircraft traffic and noise would be eliminated as an 

IPF.

Electromechanical sources are expected to have little or no effect on marine and coastal birds; 

impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment noise to marine and coastal birds were 

rated as negligible to minor under Alternative A and would be reduced to negligible under Alternative C. 

Impacts of trash and debris under Alternative C would be essentially identical to those under 

Alternative A (negligible). Impacts of trash and debris would be expected to be avoided through vessel 

operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-51

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on birds were rated as negligible to minor for most bird species, but 

potentially negligible to moderate for listed species and those proposed for listing such as piping plover, 

roseate tern, red knot, and Bermuda petrel. Under Alternative C, the risk of an accidental fuel spill would 

be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips. However the overall impact

rating remains unchanged.

2.3.3.5. Impacts on Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat (Chapter 4.4.5) for 

Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for fish resources and EFH are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment 

noise, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. Because Alternative C would not include seismic

airgun surveys or drilling activities, airguns would be eliminated as an active acoustic sound source and 

drilling discharges would be eliminated as an IPF.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources were rated as minor to moderate under Alternative A, 

mostly because of the use of airguns. With the elimination of airguns as a source, the impacts of 

electromechanical sources on fishes during HRG surveys are expected to be negligible. 

All vessels produce underwater noise, and it is likely that fishes in the AOI have habituated to this 

noise. Sound sources are below levels that can cause temporary hearing loss or injury. Masking and 

short-term behavior modifications are possible effects. Impacts on fish behavior are expected to be 

short-term and localized to areas of survey vessel activity. Impacts under Alternative C are expected to 

be reduced in comparison with Alternative A because of the reduction in vessel traffic and would be 

negligible. 

The extent of seafloor disturbance would be reduced slightly under Alternative C as compared with 

Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include bottom sampling would 

be associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The elimination of G&G

surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom 

samples taken. The total area of seafloor disturbance in soft bottom areas would be a very small 

percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Impacts on demersal fishes and EFH under Alternative C 

are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on fish resources and EFH were rated as minor under Alternative A 

and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill would be less 

because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.6. Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Fish Species (Chapter 4.4.6) for 

Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for threatened or endangered fish species are active acoustic sound sources, vessel and 

equipment noise, vessel traffic, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. Because 

Alternative C would not include seismic airgun surveys or drilling activities, airguns would be eliminated 

as an active acoustic sound source and drilling discharges would be eliminated as an IPF.

Impacts of active acoustic sound sources under Alternative A were rated as negligible for smalltooth 

sawfish and shortnose sturgeon because of their rare occurrence in the AOI, and minor for Atlantic 

sturgeon. Under Alternative C, with the removal of airguns as an active acoustic sound source, all 

acoustic impacts on these fishes are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of vessel traffic on all three listed fish species would be essentially the same as for 

Alternative A (negligible). Smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon are all 

demersal species that are unlikely to be affected by vessel and equipment noise (negligible impact, same 

as for Alternative A).

Impacts of trash and debris under Alternative C would be essentially identical to those under 

Alternative A (negligible). Benthic impacts of trash and debris deposition on the seafloor would be 

expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA 

regulations.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance under Alternative C are expected to be essentially the same as under 

Alternative A (negligible) for all of the listed fish species. The extent of seafloor disturbance would be 

reduced slightly under Alternative C as compared with Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities 
2-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

under Alternative A that include bottom sampling would be associated with the renewable energy and 

marine minerals program areas. The elimination of G&G surveys in support of oil and gas exploration 

would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom samples taken. The total area of seafloor 

disturbance in soft bottom areas would be a very small percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on listed fishes were rated as negligible under Alternative A and 

would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The three listed demersal species (smalltooth sawfish, 

shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon) are the least likely to be affected because a small fuel spill 

would be unlikely to reach the seafloor or contaminate bottom sediments. Because of their life histories, 

none of the threatened or endangered fish species would have sensitive eggs or larvae in the water column 

of the AOI where they would be exposed to accidently spilled diesel fuel. The risk of an accidental fuel 

spill would be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.7. Impacts on Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.4.7) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for commercial fisheries under Alternative C are active acoustic sound sources, vessel 

traffic, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. The elimination of G&G activities in support of 

oil and gas exploration would remove airguns and vessel exclusion zones as IPFs.

The impacts of active acoustic sound sources on commercial fisheries were rated as minor under 

Alternative A. Removal of seismic airgun surveys from the scenario would eliminate airguns as an 

acoustic source, leaving only HRG surveys using electromechanical sources. Impacts on commercial 

fisheries would be reduced to negligible to minor. 

Under Alternative C, G&G vessel traffic levels would be reduced, lessening the potential for 

interactions with commercial fishery activities and gear. Impacts could occur at a few locations and 

would be intermittent, temporary, and short-term. Impacts are expected to be negligible. 

The extent of seafloor disturbance under Alternative C would be reduced slightly as compared with 

Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include bottom sampling would 

be associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The elimination of G&G

surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom 

samples taken. It is expected that BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures, and therefore most 

impacts on commercial fishing gear and activities are expected to be avoided. Impacts are expected to be

negligible to minor. 

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on commercial fisheries were rated as negligible to minor under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill 

would be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.8. Impacts on Recreational Fisheries (Chapter 4.4.8) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for recreational fisheries are active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and 

accidental fuel spills. The elimination of G&G activities in support of oil and gas exploration would 

remove airguns and vessel exclusion zones as IPFs.

The impacts of active acoustic sound sources on recreational fisheries were rated as negligible to

minor under Alternative A. Removal of seismic airgun surveys from the scenario would eliminate 

airguns as an acoustic source, leaving only HRG surveys using electromechanical sources. Impacts on 

recreational fisheries would be reduced to negligible. 

Under Alternative C, G&G vessel traffic levels would be reduced, lessening the potential for 

interactions with recreational fishing activities and gear. Impacts could occur at a few locations and 

would be intermittent, temporary, and short-term. Impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on recreational fisheries were rated as negligible to minor under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill 

would be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.9. Impacts on Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.4.9) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for recreational resources under Alternative C are trash and debris and accidental fuel 

spills. Only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would occur. Because 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-53

Alternative C would not include seismic airgun surveys, vessel exclusion zones would be eliminated as an 

IPF.

Impacts of trash and debris on recreational resources (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) under 

Alternative C would be essentially identical to those under Alternative A (negligible). It is expected that 

impacts would be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA 

regulations.

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on recreational resources were rated as negligible to minor under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill 

would be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

Given the small size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response involving 

multiple vessels is not expected.

2.3.3.10.Impacts on Archaeological Resources (Chapter 4.4.10) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for archaeological resources under Alternative C are seafloor disturbance and 

accidental fuel spills. Because Alternative C would not include drilling activities, drilling discharges

would be eliminated as an IPF.

The extent of seafloor disturbance under Alternative C would be reduced slightly as compared with 

Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include bottom sampling would 

be associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The elimination of G&G

surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom 

samples taken. However, it is expected that BOEM would require site-specific information regarding 

potential archaeological resources prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing 

activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. Therefore, impacts of 

seafloor disturbance under Alternative C are expected to be essentially the same as for Alternative A 

(negligible). 

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on archaeological resources were rated as negligible under 

Alternative A and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill 

would be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. 

2.3.3.11.Impacts on Marine Protected Areas (Chapter 4.4.11) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for MPAs under Alternative C are active acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, 

seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. These are the IPFs that may affect key resources within 

the MPAs. Because Alternative C would not include seismic airgun surveys or drilling activities, airguns 

would be eliminated as an active acoustic sound source and drilling discharges would be eliminated as an 

IPF.

With the removal of airguns as an active acoustic sound source, the impacts on MPAs and the 

associated resources are expected to be negligible. No direct acoustic impacts would be expected on 

coastal MPAs.

Impacts of trash and debris on MPAs (e.g., trash washing up on beaches) under Alternative C would 

be essentially identical to those under Alternative A (negligible). It is expected that impacts would be 

avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations.

Impacts of seafloor disturbance on MPAs under Alternative C would be essentially the same as under 

Alternative A (negligible). The extent of seafloor disturbance would be reduced slightly under 

Alternative C as compared with Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that 

include bottom sampling would be associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program

areas. The elimination of G&G surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would only slightly reduce 

the overall number of bottom samples taken. The total area of seafloor disturbance in soft bottom areas 

would be a very small percentage of the benthic habitat in the AOI. Federal regulations prohibit 

seafloor-disturbing activities within the two NMSs, and BOEM would not authorize such activities within 

MPAs; therefore, those impacts would not take place. Because BOEM would require prior approval of 

any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures, impacts on sensitive benthic communities within other MPAs (e.g., coral, hard/live bottom, 

chemosynthetic, and deepwater canyon communities) are expected to be avoided.
2-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on MPAs were rated as negligible to minor under Alternative A and 

would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill would be less 

because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. Given the small 

size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is 

not expected.

2.3.3.12.Impacts on Other Marine Uses (Chapter 4.4.12) for Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for other marine uses under Alternative C are vessel traffic, seafloor disturbance, and 

accidental fuel spills. Because Alternative C would not include seismic airgun surveys, vessel exclusion 

zones would be eliminated as an IPF. Also, because Alternative C would not include any aeromagnetic

surveys or helicopter traffic in support of COST or shallow test well drilling, there would be no impacts 

from aircraft traffic or noise. 

Impacts of vessel traffic were rated as negligible to minor under Alternative A and would remain 

essentially the same under Alternative C. Vessel traffic has the potential for space-use conflicts with 

existing marine uses such as shipping and marine transportation, but any impacts would be of relatively 

short duration.

The extent of seafloor disturbance would be reduced slightly under Alternative C as compared with 

Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include bottom sampling would 

be associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The elimination of G&G

surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom 

samples taken. It is expected that BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G surveys involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures. Therefore, 

conflicts with other marine uses of the seafloor (e.g., artificial reef sites, dredged material disposal sites, 

military use areas, etc.) are expected to be avoided, and impacts under Alternative C would remain 

negligible. 

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on other marine uses were rated as negligible under Alternative A 

and would be essentially the same under Alternative C. The risk of an accidental fuel spill would be less 

because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under Alternative C. Given the small 

size of the spill in the proposed action scenario, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is 

not expected.

2.3.3.13.Impacts on Human Resources and Land Use (Chapter 4.4.13) for 

Alternative C

Relevant IPFs for human resources and land use under Alternative C are onshore support activities 

and accidental fuel spills. Under Alternative C, the level of onshore support activities would be reduced 

because surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would not occur. The risk of accidental fuel spills

would also be reduced because there would be fewer surveys and vessel trips.

Under Alternative A, impacts from onshore activities on human resources and land use were rated as 

negligible based on the projected level of G&G survey activity and associated demands for shore base 

space, supplies, and services. The removal of G&G surveys in support of oil and gas exploration would 

substantially reduce the vessel traffic, removing over 90,000 hours (3,725 days) of vessel activity during 

the 2012-2020 time period. Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy would 

operate mainly at specific sites in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to 

shore. Typically, these are smaller vessels that would return to their shore base daily. Vessel trips 

associated for renewable energy areas would be divided among several existing ports in Delaware, 

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Depending on the location of 

the renewable energy area, the surveys could operate from one of the five larger ports in the AOI, or any 

of numerous smaller ports along the coast, depending on whatever is convenient. Potential impacts on 

human resources and land use would remain negligible under Alternative C. 

Impacts of accidental fuel spills on human resources and land use would remain negligible under 

Alternative C. An accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to have minimal to no impact to either 

the local economies or populations of the ports and surrounding communities. The risk of an accidental 

fuel spill would be less because of the reduction in the number of surveys and vessel trips under 

Alternative C.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-55

2.4. ISSUES

Issues are defined by the CEQ to represent those principal “effects” that an EIS should evaluate 

in-depth. Scoping identifies specific environmental resources and/or activities rather than “causes” as 

significant issues (CEQ, 1981). The analysis in the EIS can then show the degree of change from present 

conditions for each issue due to the relevant actions related to the proposed action. Selection of 

environmental and socioeconomic issues to be analyzed in this Programmatic EIS was based on the 

following criteria:

• issue is identified in CEQ regulations as subject to evaluation;

• the relevant resource/activity was identified through agency expertise, through the 

scoping process, or from comments on past EISs; or

• the resource/activity may be vulnerable to one or more of the IPFs associated with 

the OCS Program; a reasonable probability of an interaction between the 

resource/activity and IPF should exist.

The public scoping process for this Programmatic EIS was conducted from April 2 to May 17, 2010 

and is described in Chapter 5. Public scoping meetings were held in seven cities (Houston, Texas; 

Jacksonville, Florida; Savannah, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; Newark, New Jersey; Norfolk, 

Virginia; and Wilmington, North Carolina). In addition to accepting oral and written comments at each 

public meeting, BOEM accepted written comments by mail and through a dedicated email address. 

BOEM received a total of 965 comments through email (75%), formal letters (18%), and public meeting 

testimony (7%). Each comment was read and categorized according to its source and the nature of the 

information provided in the comment. The scope and content of this Programmatic EIS have been 

structured to ensure that the issues and concerns expressed by stakeholders during the scoping process are 

fully addressed.

2.4.1. Issues to be Analyzed

This Programmatic EIS addresses issues associated with various G&G activities, including potential 

IPFs and related impacts on environmental and socioeconomic resources and activities characteristic of 

the AOI. In addition, this Programmatic EIS addresses the potential environmental and socioeconomic 

effects of accidents on AOI resources and considers cumulative impacts (i.e., the incremental impacts on

AOI resources associated with the project alternatives).

The following issues were identified for detailed analysis:

• impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, birds, and other 

marine life;

• impacts of underwater noise on commercial and recreational fishing (fish catch); 

• impacts of vessel traffic (risk of ship strikes) on marine mammals and sea turtles, 

birds, and threatened and endangered fish species; 

• impacts of vessel traffic on fishing, shipping, and other marine uses;

• impacts of aircraft traffic and noise on marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and other 

marine uses; 

• impacts of seafloor-disturbing activities on sensitive benthic communities including 

coral and hard/live bottom communities, chemosynthetic communities, and 

deepwater canyon benthos; 

• impacts of seafloor-disturbing activities on EFH, HAPCs, and MPAs; 

• impacts of seafloor-disturbing activities on archaeological resources including 

historic shipwrecks and prehistoric archaeological sites;

• impacts of vessel exclusion zones on commercial and recreational fishing, shipping, 

recreational resources, and other marine uses;

• impacts of marine trash and debris on benthic communities, marine mammals, sea 

turtles, birds, endangered or threatened fish species, and recreational resources; and
2-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

• impacts of accidental spills on benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, 

birds, fishes and EFH, archaeological resources, recreational resources, MPAs, other 

marine uses, and human resources and land use. 

2.4.2. Issues Considered but Not Analyzed

As part of the scoping process, CEQ regulations require agencies to identify and eliminate from 

detailed study the issues that are not significant to the proposed action, have been covered by prior 

environmental review, or do not fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action. Chapter 4.1.1

describes the screening process for impact analysis and identifies issues that were considered but not 

analyzed in detail. Examples include impacts of underwater noise on plankton; impacts of 

seafloor-disturbing activities on geology and sediment quality; impacts of vessel effluents on water 

quality; and impacts of vessel and aircraft emissions on air quality. 

2.5. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED

The following additional alternatives were identified during the scoping process. For the reasons 

identified under each, they are not considered for detailed analysis in this Programmatic EIS. 

2.5.1. Limit Authorizing G&G Activities to Renewable Energy and Marine 

Minerals

Under this alternative, G&G activities for the renewable energy and marine minerals programs would 

continue, but G&G activities for the oil and gas program would not be authorized. This alternative would 

be essentially identical to Alternative C (No Action for Oil and Gas, Status Quo for Renewable Energy 

and Marine Minerals G&G Activity).

At present, G&G activities for siting renewable energy and marine minerals are authorized in all 

planning areas of the Atlantic, and there is no compelling programmatic need to entertain such an 

evaluation unless a new and potentially significant stressor is potentially introduced. That stressor would 

be deep penetration seismic surveying for oil and gas exploration, which is not currently permitted in the 

Atlantic because these planning areas have been under moratoria for so long. There is a need for 

evaluating Atlantic areas now that the U.S. Congress has indicated that it is contemplating oil and gas 

exploration there. Because of the conference report referenced below, BOEM elects to carry out this 

evaluation in context of all G&G activities potentially able to be authorized by it in the three program 

areas. The conference report to the U.S. House of Representatives addressing appropriations 

(Report 111-316) notes the following:

The conferees support the Administration’s efforts to secure a balanced energy portfolio 

that carefully weighs what is in the best interest of our energy-dependent nation with 

what is in the best interest of our natural environment. Future coordinated efforts to 

pursue additional oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) must 

include the opportunity to apply advanced technologies, be based on the best available 

science, and take into account the potential environmental impacts of such potential 

development. Therefore, the conferees direct the Minerals Management Service, 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, to conduct a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (Programmatic EIS) to evaluate potential significant 

environmental effects of multiple geological and geophysical activities in the Atlantic 

OCS and provide a detailed timeline for completion of the Programmatic EIS no later 

than 90 days after enactment of this Act. The conferees believe this request is consistent 

with the Department’s stated desire to fill in information gaps relating to resource 

potential in the OCS.

Under Section 18 of the OCSLA, the Secretary is required to prepare and maintain a schedule of 

proposed OCS oil and gas lease sales determined to “best meet national energy needs for the 5-year 

period following its approval or reapproval.” As this NEPA evaluation has been directed by the Congress 

using the language above, it is clearly intended that the evaluation expressly consider the G&G activities 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-57

in support of oil and gas exploration. To not consider these activities would render this potential 

alternative identical to the current Alternative C. 

2.5.2. Expand Permitted G&G Activities into the North Atlantic Planning Area 

Under this alternative, BOEM would expand the AOI to include the North Atlantic Planning Area. 

This alternative would address an interest expressed by G&G industry representatives to expand 

permitted G&G operations. Industry has noted that G&G data from the North Atlantic would help to 

define regional geologic structures extending from Nova Scotia to the Mid-Atlantic. According to the 

G&G industry, this information could aid in assessing resource potential in the Mid- and South Atlantic 

Planning Areas. 

In March 2010, President Obama and Secretary Salazar announced a Comprehensive Strategy for 

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Development to strengthen the Nation’s energy security and reduce 

dependence on foreign oil, while protecting fisheries, tourism, and areas off U.S. coasts that are not 

appropriate for development. This comprehensive strategy document excluded the North Atlantic. This 

decision was made with consideration of comments received on the 2009 Draft Proposed Program for the 

2012-2017 Oil and Gas Leasing Program. This included comments where the States of Delaware and 

New Jersey voiced their opposition to oil and natural gas activities off their coasts and pointed to State 

policies and initiatives to encourage development of renewable energy sources (USDOI BOEM 2012). 

This was reflected in a December 2010 decision by USDOI to remove the North Atlantic Planning Area 

from leasing consideration until 2017 (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010). Moreover, under OCSLA Section 18, 

the region-specific strategies reflected in BOEM’s proposed leasing program are designed to take into 

account current and developing information about resource potential, the status of resource development 

and emergency response infrastructure to support oil and gas activities, recognition of regional interest 

and concerns, and the need for a balanced approach to our use of the Nation’s shared natural resources. 

While certain Atlantic Coast States are supportive of offshore oil and natural gas leasing in the Mid- and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas, certain states bordering the North Atlantic Planning Area expressed 

concerns about oil and natural gas development off their coasts and in neighboring areas. Based on all of 

these considerations, the Secretary of the Interior decided that the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning 

Areas would be the Agency’s priority for exploration activities in support of oil and gas. As such, the 

North Atlantic Planning Area would not be included in the Programmatic EIS. Accordingly, BOEM is 

proceeding with a region-specific strategy to address these considerations and support future decisionmaking regarding whether, and if so where, potential offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Mid- and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas would be appropriate. 

Despite the fact that this alternative was not analyzed, planning and G&G activities will proceed for 

renewable energy and marine minerals projects on a case-by-case basis, as explained in Alternative C 

above. 

2.5.3. Reprocess Existing G&G Data 

Under this alternative, the G&G industry would reprocess existing data, collected mainly during the 

late 1970’s and 1980’s, rather than receiving permits to conduct new surveys. Under this alternative, 

existing G&G data would be reprocessed, made available for resource evaluation purposes, and used for 

decision-making. 

Geological and geophysical surveys were last performed in the Atlantic, in some cases nearly 

30 years ago, and all of these collected two-dimensional (2D) seismic data (Figure 2-5). Advances in 

instrumentation, technology, and computer processing speed since that time have resulted in data 

gathering techniques, equipment, and imaging technology capable of providing far more accurate and 

dependable data. Modern oil and gas operators evaluate potential prospects on the basis of 

three-dimensional (3D) seismic data, which is not now available in the U.S. Atlantic OCS AOI. 

The existing seismic surveys in the Atlantic are suitable for identifying large geologic structures 

potentially suitable for economic oil and gas resources. However, using such vintage surveys to 

optimally site an exploratory well or a well field, or to interpret the nature of formation fluids or gases, is 

generally not reasonable. Risk assessment teams in modern oil and gas companies assess prospect 

portfolios based in part on risk elements that typically rely heavily upon modern seismic data. 
2-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

No amount of digital reprocessing can add information that was not contained in the original data. 

New surveys conducted with current technology would significantly improve the ability of both industry 

and Government to predict where, and in what quantity, fossil fuel hydrocarbons are more likely to be 

found. New surveys conducted with current technology would also allow the Government to place a fair 

and appropriate value on these resources for the Nation. Additionally, the reprocessing of existing G&G

data would not alleviate the need for high-resolution, site-specific G&G data to locate bottom-founded 

structures for oil and gas exploration or renewable energy installations, or potential marine minerals 

borrow locations. 

Reliance on existing data or digitally reprocessed data, which still has some value, does not meet the 

stated purpose and need as it does not provide accurate data on which to base regulatory and industry 

decisions.

2.5.4. Delay the Permitting Process

Under this alternative, BOEM would delay G&G activities until more baseline information is 

available to evaluate impacts or until additional improved mitigation methods are developed and tested.

BOEM has determined that the information available today is adequate to evaluate impacts of G&G

activities for decision-making, particularly at the programmatic level. NEPA acknowledges that agencies 

often do not have complete information and provides a process by which agencies can evaluate any 

relevant gaps in information and determine whether they can move forward in the absence of such 

information and where applicable apply other credible scientific information that is available (see 40 CFR 

§ 1502.22). BOEM has applied these standards in this Programmatic EIS and has determined that there is 

sufficient information to proceed. In addition, this alternative fails to meet the purpose and need as it 

would impede the timely environmental evaluation of exploration techniques.

BOEM also has determined that a delay to await future mitigation developments is not necessary 

because the proposed action includes an adaptive management approach that would incorporate new 

technology and improved mitigation measures as they are developed and proven efficacious.

In addition, the potential impacts of such G&G activities, should they occur in the future under this 

alternative, have been fully analyzed in the two action alternatives, i.e., Alternatives A and B. Similar to 

the No Action Alternative (Alternative C), those impacts would be avoided or mitigated for the duration 

of the delay in permitting. Therefore, the potential impacts of this alternative have already been fully 

discussed within this Programmatic EIS. BOEM determined that it would not be useful to the decision 

maker or public to merely reiterate these impacts (or the delay in impacts) through a separate alternative, 

when they have already been fully discussed herein.

Finally, delaying the permitting process does not meet the stated purpose and need.

2.5.5. Consolidate and Coordinate Surveys

Under this alternative, 2D and 3D seismic exploration surveys would be consolidated and/or 

coordinated through one private or Federal entity or would be processed through an independent panel of 

experts (to be established) to compile applications into a survey plan that eliminates duplication of survey 

effort. Industry G&G operators perform roughly the same type of assessment for maximum utility for 

many types of surveys based on characteristics and parameters they know are desired by industry. 

Operators may then conduct surveys on “spec,” meaning that the G&G operator sells a license to multiple

users of the survey output.

BOEM has eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis because an adaptive management

process that can serve as a mechanism to implement restrictions to surveys operating in the same area

exists under Alternatives A and B. This may include limits to data collection in specific areas that would 

in turn encourage industry to consolidate and coordinate their activities. Finally, this alternative would 

not eliminate the need for site-specific surveys in support of individual development projects (oil and gas, 

renewable energy, or marine minerals). As a leasing and permitting agency that administers Federal 

lands, BOEM acts upon requests to use those Federal lands; BOEM does not direct the actions of 

operators in the private sector or compel business decisions. Likewise, it is not within the mission of this 

Agency to directly undertake the proposed G&G activities, except in the rare circumstance BOEM is part 

of a joint industry project. Therefore, an expectation that BOEM may directly undertake such work or 

direct that such work be done by private companies is not in conformance to the principles of USDOI 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-59

governance. In addition, consolidating and coordinating surveys would require the creation of another 

untested series of regulatory controls and reviews, and does not clearly fall under the mandates of this 

Agency or USDOE or USGS. Such a program would likely not meet the information needs of developers 

and would likely prove impractical to organize and administer. In potentially failing to meet these 

information needs, this alternative may not meet the purpose and need articulated in this Programmatic 

EIS. 

There are more research-oriented parts of the Federal government under which actions to consolidate 

and coordinate exploration surveys could conceivably take place; for example, the USDOE and the 

USGS. Such G&G work contemplated here, however, would only be done in furtherance of a company 

or operator acquiring a lease on Federal lands to develop a resource, and neither the USGS nor USDOE 

are charged with the leasing of Federal OCS lands or the consolidation and coordination of exploration 

research on the OCS. . 

As noted above, as this alternative may not meet the purpose and need and would not conform to the 

missions of BOEM and its sister agencies, this alternative has not been retained for further analysis.

2.5.6. Require Non-Airgun Acoustic Sources

Under this alternative, BOEM would not authorize the use of airguns as sound sources for seismic

surveys. Industry would have to rely on other measures to obtain accurate data on the location and extent 

of hydrocarbon resources, including alternative acoustic source technologies that produce less underwater 

noise and reduce the potential for impacts on marine life. 

Alternatives to airguns are discussed briefly below, with additional details in Appendix C of this 

Programmatic EIS. Examples include the following: 

• marine vibrators;

• low-frequency acoustic source (LACS) (patented); 

• deep-towed acoustics/geophysical system (DTAGS);

• low-frequency passive seismic (LFPS) methods;

• low-impact seismic array (LISA);

• fiber optic receivers allowing smaller airguns; and

• airgun modifications to lessen impacts.

The following discussion is based in part on the Okeanos Seismic Airgun Alternatives Workshop 

(Weilgart, 2010). In 2009, an international, multi-disciplinary group of geophysical scientists, 

seismologists, biologists, and regulators met in Monterey, California, to discuss potential alternatives 

and/or modifications to airguns and airgun array configurations in order to minimize the potential impacts 

from airguns (Weilgart, 2010). The Okeanos Seismic Airgun Alternatives workshop panelists discussed 

promising new imaging technologies that are either completely silent or that can lessen the amount of 

seismic sound required to gather seismic data, thereby still allowing for a reduction of the economic risk 

of hydrocarbon recovery. Workshop panelists acknowledged that these technologies are purpose-driven 

and do not work in all circumstances.

2.5.6.1. Marine Vibroseis (Vibrators) 

Marine vibroseis is currently considered to be the most promising alternative for airguns in select 

settings and applications (i.e., shallow water, sensitive habitat, near biological resources). However, 

marine vibroseis will not be a wholesale replacement for airguns. There are currently a number of 

different types of marine vibrators under development. 

The Marine Vibroseis Joint Industry Program, sponsored by ExxonMobil, Shell, and Total, is 

pursuing development of new marine vibroseis technologies in a phased approach. Phase I, which was 

completed in September 2009, consisted of scoping, casting a wide net outside of the oil/gas industry to 

identify a broad range of technologies, and developing specifications. Phase II, which was completed in 

March 2013, consisted of contacting vendors, receiving and evaluating proposals, and selecting three 

proposals to fund and move forward. Phase III, which is underway, is pursuing three different 

technologies and expects that the first prototype will be tested and evaluated in 18 months. Phase IV will 
2-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

be to build and field test commercial systems from the technologies tested and evaluated in Phase III. 

Phase IV is anticipated to be completed in 2016 (Rosenbladt et al., 2013).

2.5.6.1.1. Hydraulic

In 1985, Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. (IVI) offered the first commercial marine vibrator 

system (IVI, 2003). The developed system consists of a marine vibrator, vibrator controller, and a power 

unit. The marine vibrator contains a piston within a housing with power supplied to the electrical, 

pneumatic, and hydraulic systems by the power unit. An alternator, air compressor, and two 

pressure-driven hydraulic pumps are driven by an air-cooled diesel engine. The source is capable of 

generating modulated frequencies between 10 and 250 Hz and can be used in water depths as shallow as 

1 m (3 ft). Signals are generated by conventional land vibrator controllers (IVI, 2010).

The system has been tested in various environments from transition zones to deepwater. Acoustic 

performance tests conducted at the Seneca Lake Facility of the Naval Underwater Systems Center in 1988 

evaluated the system and determined that the marine vibrator was deficient in the low frequencies 

(Johnston, 1989; Walker et al., 1996). A comparison of marine vibrator, dynamite, and airgun sources in 

southern Louisiana concluded that the marine vibrator was a viable source for environmentally sensitive 

areas (Potter et al., 1997; Smith and Jenkerson, 1998). In transition zones, when coupled with the 

seafloor, marine vibrators operate like a land vibrator (Christensen, 1989). The best performance is on a 

seafloor, which distributes the vibrator’s forces.

Initial deepwater tests were conducted in the Gulf of Mexico by Geco-Prakla using a vibrator with an 

energy output approximately equivalent to a 1,000 in3 airgun. Despite limitations of low-frequency

energy, good definition of reflectors down to 3 s indicated that the system was viable (Haldorsen et al., 

1985). In 1996, a commercial field test comparing a six-marine-vibrator array with a single 4,258 in3

airgun was undertaken in the North Sea by Geco-Prakla with the objectives of evaluating cost, reliability, 

production rate and quality of the geophysical data. After 2 weeks of data collection, a comparison 

between the marine vibrator and the airgun data indicated that the marine vibrator data contained more 

frequency content above 30 Hz and less frequency content below 10 Hz than the airgun data, but overall 

the data were comparable. Marine vibrator production rates were slightly lower than those of the airgun, 

but by the end of the survey, the technical downtime of the marine vibrator was similar to the airgun 

(Johnson et al., 1997).

Geco-Prakla, a subsidiary of Schlumberger, operated the marine vibrator program, conducting 

surveys and tests until 2000 when the exclusive-use agreement between IVI and Schlumberger expired 

(Bird, 2003). IVI continued to further develop the system into the early 2000’s, but they are no longer 

actively marketing the product because there is no client base for the system. The significant expense to 

retrofit the marine exploration companies’ ships to support marine vibrators is not offset by reduced 

operation costs or better data quality. IVI presently has marine vibrator systems that could be used for 

seismic data collection, but they would require renovation prior to deployment, which could take 

3 months to a year (E. Christensen, Vice President IVI, pers. comm. with J. Lage, BOEM, 2010).

2.5.6.1.2. Electric

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) began developing an electro-mechanical marine vibrator in the late 

1990’s. The original system consists of two transducers: the lower frequency (6-20 Hz) “Subtone” source 

and the higher frequency (20-100 Hz) “Triton” source (Tenghamn, 2005, 2006). Each vibrator is 

composed of a flextensional shell that surrounds an electrical coil, a magnetic circuit, and a spring 

element. The sound in the water column is generated by a current in the coil, which causes the spring 

elements and shell to vibrate. Mechanical resonances from the shell and spring elements allow very 

efficient, high power generation (Tenghamn, 2005, 2006; Spence et al., 2007). The source tow-depth, 

generally between 5 and 25 m (16 and 82 ft) below the sea surface, is selected depending on the 

frequency and enhancement from the surface reflection which, to a certain degree, directs the acoustic 

signal downwards.

The reduction of the overall sound level and specifically the frequencies above 100 Hz, which are 

beyond the useful seismic range, is a major advantage of the system. Another is the reduction of acoustic 

power in comparison with conventional seismic sources, which occurs because the net source energy is 

spread over a long period of time (Tenghamn, 2005, 2006).
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-61

This system was compared to a 760 in3 airgun along a 2D line in shallow water. A comparison of the 

data demonstrates that the marine vibrator equals the penetration of the airgun down to 5.5 s two-way 

travel time while emitting less acoustic energy into the water. A second test comparing dynamite to the 

vibrators was run in the transition zone (1.2-1.8 m [4-6 ft] of water). The transducers were mounted in a 

frame that was placed on the seabed. The vibrators lost the low-frequency component because of

attenuation of the signal, limiting the depth of penetration to approximately 2 s two-way travel time. 

However, in the shallower sections imaged by the vibrator, the two sources compared favorably 

(Tenghamn, 2005, 2006). Most of the trials have been conducted in shallow water (<100 m [<328 ft]); 

deeper water tests need to be run to determine performance depth range of the system (Tenghamn, 2010).

During the early period of development, the system proved the concept that it worked as a source for 

seismic data. However, unreliability prevented it from becoming a commercial system. PGS spent 2006 

and 2007 conducting a feasibility study to improve reliability and testing a newly developed prototype. 

New sources have since been tested for reliability and acoustic performance during 2008 and 2009

(R. Tenghamn, Vice President Innovation and Business Development PGS, pers. comm. to K. Olsen, 

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., June 4, 2013).

In 2007, PGS took over the commercialization and used this system in onshore and shallow water 

regions. In 2010, Geokinetics purchased the onshore division of PGS, which included the onshore and 

shallow water marine vibroseis system, and have since developed a more robust vibrator to withstand the 

rigors of seismic operations in their commercialization of the marine vibrator out to 200 m. PGS 

continues to own the intellectual property for the marine vibrator development for use in deep water 

(>200 m). This design has replaced the electromagnetic voice coil drivers with more reliable drivers and 

made refinements to the springs and pressure equalization systems, and also implements a feedback 

control system that can drive the vibrator. This system has been through calibration tests in 2011 and was 

tested in both vertical and horizontal positions. Currently, the design is awaiting sea trials to test for data 

quality, field ability, and endurance.

The Geokinetics marine vibrator is a collaborative project with PGS and is a significant design 

departure from previous marine vibrator units. The proof of concept was demonstrated offshore Texas in 

1999. It follows specific design specifications of a frequency range between 6 and 100 Hz and an output 

level of approximately 2 bar meters peak-to-peak. The advantages of the Geokinetics marine vibrator

include potentially lower environmental impacts with lower amplitude levels, the capability to conduct

specialized sweeps using pseudo-noise technology, and no in-water hydraulics with a completely electromechanical system for drivers and controls. With the efficient flextensional shell design, which 

minimizes water flow and maximizes pressure wave generation, this design is more efficient at generating 

low frequencies. Another advantage of the Geokinetics system is the two intentional resonances within 

the seismic bandwidth, making it easier to generate the desired frequency band. The two resonant 

frequencies show up as peaks in amplitude spectrum. The subtones have a resonant frequency of 8 and 

24 Hz. The tritons have a resonant frequency of 28 and 80 Hz. If the two spectrums are combined, there 

is an overall high amplitude spectrum completely inside the useable bandwidth for seismic activity.

Currently the Geokinetics marine vibrator is the one closest to being ready for commercial use. For 

the most part, other alternative impulse sources are currently experimental. Information collected to date 

indicates that marine vibroseis is less environmentally damaging than airguns, but this evaluation needs to 

be expanded to a full EA to accurately evaluate the impacts and determine if there are tradeoffs in the 

types of impacts among the different technologies. Special attention needs to be given to potential 

unintended consequences of the control of phase spectrum of marine vibroseis, which allows for the 

proliferation of a number of sources over a large area all being fired at the same time. This approach 

effectively increases the size of the area impacted and a pseudorandom noise sweep of marine vibrators in 

this configuration may result in marine mammal masking effects at higher frequencies than currently 

employed, with unknown consequences (CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., in prep.). 

2.5.6.2. Low-Frequency Acoustic Source (patented) (LACS)

Originally designed as a ship sound simulator for the Norwegian navy, the LACS is being promoted 

as an alternative source for seismic acquisition (Weilgart, 2010). The LACS system is a combustion 

engine with a cylinder, spark plug, two pistons, two lids, and a shock absorber. It creates an acoustic 

pulse when two pistons push lids vertically in opposite directions; one wave reflects from the sea surface 

and combines with the downward moving wave. There is no bubble noise from this system as all air is 
2-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

vented and released at the surface, not into the underwater environment. The absence of bubble noise 

allows the system to produce long sequences of acoustic pulses at a rate of 11 shots per second; this 

allows the signal energy to be built up in time with a lower amount of energy put into the water 

(Askeland et al., 2007, 2009). The system design also controls the output signal waveform, which can 

reduce the amount of non-seismic (>100 Hz) frequencies produced (Spence et al., 2007). The transmitted 

pulses are recorded by a near-field hydrophone and seafloor and sediment reflections are recorded by a 

far-field streamer (Askeland et al., 2007, 2009).

Two LACS systems are being offered commercially. The LACS 4A has a diameter of 400 mm 

(15.7 in), a height of 600 mm (24 in), and a weight of approximately 100 kilograms (kg) (220 pounds 

[lb]) in air. Pulse peak-peak pressure is 218 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. Field test results of the LACS 4A 

system demonstrate that the system is capable of accurately imaging shallow sediments (~230 m [755 ft]) 

within a fjord environment (Askeland et al., 2008, 2009). This system is suitable for shallow penetration 

towed-streamer seismic surveys or VSPs (Askeland et al., 2008).

The second system, the LACS 8A, theoretically has the potential to compete with a conventional deep 

penetration airgun seismic array. The LACS 8A system has pulse peak-peak pressure of 3 bar meter or 

230 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. The weight is 400 kg (880 lb), and the diameter is 800 mm (31.5 in). Several 

LACS units may be operated together to provide an increased pulse pressure (Bjørge Naxys AS, 2010). 

This system currently does not exist, and the project is presently on hold. It would take at least 18 months 

to build and field test one of these systems if money came available to do so (J. Abrahamsen, Managing 

Director Bjørge Naxys, pers. comm. to J. Lage, BOEM, 2010).

The LACS system may be suitable but currently exists only as a design, and there is no known 

interest in further development of this system.

2.5.6.3. Deep-Towed Acoustics/Geophysics System (DTAGS)

The USDON developed a DTAGS to better characterize the geoacoustic properties of abyssal plain 

and other deepwater sediments. The system was tested and modified in the early 1990’s and used in 

various locations around the world until it was lost at sea in 1997 (Gettrust et al., 1991; Wood et al., 

2003).

The second generation DTAGS is based on the original design but with more modern electronics. It 

uses the same Helmholtz resonator source consisting of five concentric piezoelectric ceramic rings sealed 

in an oil-filled rubber sleeve to generate a broadband signal greater than 2 octaves. The optimum 

frequency performance range is between 220 and 1,000 Hz with a source level of 200 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m, 

which is a major improvement over the original DTAGS. The source is extremely flexible, allowing for 

changes in waveform and decrease in sound level to produce a source amplitude, waveform, and 

frequency to suit specific requirements (Wood et al., 2003; Wood, 2010).

The DTAGS is towed behind a survey vessel usually at a level of 100 m (328 ft) above the seafloor 

and a vessel speed of 2 kn (3.7 km/hr); it can operate at full ocean depths (6,000 m [19,685 ft]). A 450-m 

(1,476 ft), 48-channel streamer array is towed behind the source to record the reflected signals. The 

DTAGS can also be configured with an aluminum landing plate, which transmits the acoustic energy 

directly into the seafloor. With this configuration, vertical bottom-founded hydrophone arrays are used to 

receive reflections (Breland, 2010).

Proximity of the acoustic source to the seafloor is an advantage of the DTAGS. The system has a 

limit of 1 km (0.6 mi) penetration in most marine sediments (Wood et al., 2003). It has been used 

successfully to map gas hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico (Wood et al., 2008), Canadian Pacific (Wood and 

Gettrust, 2000; Wood et al., 2002), and Blake Ridge (Wood and Gettrust, 2000).

There is only one DTAGS in existence at this time. While it has imaged shallow sediments and gas 

hydrate environments extremely well, the current tool design could not replace a deep penetration airgun

array for oil and gas exploration at this time; DTAGS was not designed for this purpose. However, there 

is no physical limitation to designing a resonant cavity source to simulate the frequency band of airguns.

According to Weilgart (2012), DTAGS was tested in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 2011 and 

was scheduled to undergo another trial off the coast of Oregon in September 2012. Though the frequency

range of DTAGS is currently 200-4,000 Hz, it may be extended down to about 100 Hz (Warren Wood, 

pers. comm., cited in Weilgart, 2012).
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-63

2.5.6.4. Low-Frequency Passive Seismic Methods for Exploration

Low-frequency passive seismic methods utilize microseisms, which are faint tremors caused by the 

natural sounds of the earth, to image the subsurface. A typical survey consists of highly sensitive 

receivers (usually broadband seismometers) placed in the AOI to collect data over a period of time. Upon 

completion of the survey, the data are analyzed and filtered to remove all non-natural sounds, which is 

most efficiently completed using an automated process (Hanssen and Bussat, 2008).

All of the current methods use one of following three sources of natural sounds: natural seismicity, 

ocean waves, or microseism surface waves.

Natural seismicity uses the earth’s own movements as a source of energy. Two techniques have been 

developed to use this energy source. Daylight imaging (DLI) uses the local seismicity of an area to 

produce reflection seismic profiles, similar to those recorded in active seismic surveys (Claerbout, 1968). 

As in active reflection seismic operations, geophones are deployed; the target can be imaged using a 

regularly spaced 2D line geometry (Hohl and Mateeva, 2006; Draganov et al., 2009). The seismicity of 

the area, geologic complexity, and receiver sensitivity control the record length. Daylight imaging can 

augment active seismic data, where it is difficult to collect data. Local earthquake tomography also uses 

local seismicity of a region to map on the reservoir scale (Kapotas et al., 2003). However, it is used to 

calculate the velocity structure of the subsurface in 3D by analyzing each earthquake on multiple 

receivers and generating ray paths instead of cross-correlating the recorded signals. This method requires 

a longer period of data collection than the other methods to produce results.

Ocean waves are used as a sound source for the seafloor compliance technique. The method requires 

that ocean bottom seismometer stations with highly sensitive, broadband seismometers and differential or 

absolute pressure gauges be installed in water several hundred meters deep. In the right setting, a coarse 

one-dimensional (1D) S-wave velocity model of the subsurface down to the Moho can be generated using 

the measured water pressure and vertical movement of the seabed caused by large passing ocean waves 

(Crawford and Singh, 2008).

Ambient-noise (surface-wave) tomography [AN(SW)T] uses low-frequency (between 0.1 and 1 Hz) 

ambient noise records to estimate shear wave velocities and structural information about the earth. The 

ambient noise used consists mainly of microseism surface waves (Rayleigh and Love waves) (Bussat and 

Kugler, 2009). This technique requires the use of broadband seismometers to record the low-frequency 

surface waves, which can penetrate to depths of several kilometers (Bensen et al., 2007, 2008). Because 

the marine environment produces abundant, high-energy surface waves, a few hours or days of 

acquisition can produce good quality data. AN(SW)T can be used in areas where seismic data are 

difficult to collect or in environmentally sensitive areas. While this technology is new and still in need of 

further testing, the lateral resolution at several kilometer depths may reach a few hundred meters, and the 

resolution may be better than gravimetric or magnetic data, which is promising for oil and gas exploration 

(Bussat and Kugler, 2009).

Surface-wave amplitudes is a method that images the geological structure of the subsurface by 

analyzing passive acoustic data that have not been geophysically processed. The transformation of 

incoming micro-seismic surface waves, scattered at vertical discontinuities, into body waves may produce 

these data, but the process is not well understood (Gorbatikov et al., 2008).

Low-frequency spectroscopy, also known as LFPS or hydrocarbon microtremor analysis (HyMAS), 

tests for an indication of subsurface hydrocarbon accumulation using spectral signatures gathered from 

the ambient seismic wave field recorded by broadband seismometers. The cause of the spectral 

anomalies, often called direct hydrocarbon indicators (DHI), is presently unknown, but the following 

reasons have been proposed: standing wave resonance, selective attenuation, resonant amplification (Graf 

et al., 2007), and pore fluid oscillations (Frehner et al., 2006; Holzner et al., 2009). Energy anomalies in 

the frequency range between 1 and 6 Hz have been observed in known hydrocarbon areas including 

Mexico (Saenger et al., 2009), Abu Dhabi (Birkelo et al., 2010), Brazil, Austria (Graf et al., 2007), and 

southern Asia (West et al., 2010). However, this methodology is highly dependent on the ability to 

process out all anthropogenic noise and topography (Hanssen and Bussat, 2008). This method is still in 

the early stage of development and has not been confirmed in the field during all studies (Ali et al., 2007; 

Al-Faraj, 2007).

The most successful use of low-frequency passive micro-seismic data has been on land, where it is 

easier to isolate the extraneous noise from the natural signal. The technique is also promising in the 

marine environment. To ensure success of a marine survey, (1) it is imperative that the recording 
2-64 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

instruments are in proper contact with the substrate (the natural signal may not be accurately recorded in 

unconsolidated material) and (2) the increase in both anthropogenic and naturally produced noise in the 

marine environment is correctly filtered so that it does not mask the signal of interest.

Passive seismic surveys cannot replace active seismic acquisition. However, passive acoustic data 

have the potential to enhance oil recovery at a better resolution than magnetic or gravimetric methods 

(Bussat and Kugler, 2009), especially in areas that are environmentally sensitive or where active seismic 

operations are difficult.

2.5.6.5. Low-Impact Seismic Array (LISA)

Nedwell (2010) describes the concept of a LISA based on the use of inexpensive but powerful and 

rugged electromagnetic projectors to replace airgun arrays. The prospective benefit was that since the 

signal could be well controlled, both in frequency content and in the direction in which the sound 

propagated, the possibility existed of undertaking seismic surveys in environmentally sensitive areas with 

little or no collateral environmental impact. 

The LISA project embodies the idea of using a large array of small but powerful electromagnetic 

projectors to replace airgun arrays. Initial measurements were made on a small (n = 4) array of existing 

electromagnetic transducers. It was found that a source level of about 142 dB re 1 μPa per volt @ 1 m 

was achieved, at a peak frequency of 25 Hz. The operating frequency could be reduced to below 10 Hz 

with reasonable modifications, allowing use of an array for seismic exploration. The results indicate that 

it would be possible to achieve an array source level of about 223 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m, which is adequate 

for seismic surveying.

2.5.6.6. Fiber Optic Receivers

Short of replacing seismic airguns, improvements in fiber optic sensing and telemetering could allow 

use of smaller airguns and airgun arrays in the future (Nash and Strudley, 2010). Fiber optic receivers are 

receivers that incorporate optical fibers to transmit the received acoustic signal as light. They are most 

frequently used in the petroleum industry for seismic permanent reservoir monitoring, a 4D reservoir 

evaluation application. The optical receivers are permanently placed on the seafloor, ensuring 

consistency and repeatability of the 4D surveys, better signal-to-noise ratios, and quality of subsequently 

collected data. Fiber optic systems are not new. Fiber optical components have been used by the military 

for years in similar applications for antisubmarine warfare and area surveillance and have proven to be 

highly reliable.

Fiber optic receivers are more sensitive than standard receivers, which allows for smaller airgun

arrays to be used. While these receivers offer a benefit to the environment through a decrease in airgun 

noise, this technology is not presently available for towed-streamer surveys.

Fiber optic receivers typically are used in areas with large-scale oil and gas production requiring 4D

monitoring. They would not be expected to be used in the Atlantic OCS during the time period of the 

Programmatic EIS because there are no active leases and only very limited exploration activities could 

occur between 2018 and 2020 if leasing is allowed (Chapter 3). 

2.5.6.7. Airgun Modifications to Lessen Impacts

In addition to alternative methods for seismic data collection, industry and the public sector have 

actively investigated the use of technology-based mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of airguns in 

the water.

2.5.6.7.1. Airgun Silencers

One such measure, an airgun silencer, which has acoustically absorptive foam rubber on metal plates 

mounted radially around the airgun, has demonstrated 0-6 dB reductions at frequencies above and 0-3 dB 

reductions below 700 Hz. This system has been tested only on low pressure airguns and is not a viable 

mitigation tool because it needs to be replaced after 100 shots (Spence et al., 2007).

Spence et al. (2007) characterized the airgun silencer as a “proof-of-concept” that would require

further development to become a commercial product. During a workshop conducted for the Spence et al. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-65

(2007) report, participants suggested that placing the absorbent material farther from the airgun may 

increase the life of the silencer and allow it to be used for larger airguns and arrays. However, a later 

review by Spence (2009) characterized the airgun silencer treatment as “impractical” for the same reasons 

noted above.

2.5.6.7.2. Bubble Curtains

Bubble curtains generally consist of a rubber hose or metal pipe with holes to allow air passage and a 

connector hose attached to an air compressor. They have successfully been tested and used in 

conjunction with pile driving and at construction sites to frighten away fishes and decrease the noise level 

emitted into the surrounding water (Würsig et al., 2000a; Sexton, 2007; Reyff, 2009). They have also 

been used as stand-alone units or with light and sound to deflect fishes away from dams or keep them out 

of specific areas (Pegg, 2005; Weiser, 2010).

The use of bubbles as a mitigation for seismic noise has also been pursued. During an initial test of 

the concept, the sound source was flanked by two bubble screens; it demonstrated that bubble curtains 

were capable of attenuating seismic energy up to 28 dB at 80 Hz while stationary in a lake. This 

two-bubble curtain configuration was field tested from a moving vessel in Venezuela and Aruba where a 

12-dB suppression of low-frequency sound and a decrease in the sound level of laterally projecting sound 

was documented (Sixma, 1996; Sixma and Stubbs, 1998). A different study in the Gulf of Mexico tested 

an “acoustic blanket” of bubbles as a method to suppress multiple reflections in the seismic data. The 

results of the acoustic blanket study determined that suppression of multiples was not practical using the 

current technology. However, the acoustic blanket measurably suppressed tube waves in boreholes and 

has the capability of blocking out thruster noises from a laying vessel during an ocean bottom cable 

survey, which would allow closer proximity of the shooting vessel and increase productivity (Ross et al., 

2004, 2005).

A recent study “Methods to Reduce Lateral Noise Propagation from Seismic Exploration Vessels” 

was conducted by Stress Engineering Services Inc. under the BOEM Technology Assessment & Research 

Program (Ayers et al., 2009, 2010). The first phase of the project was spent researching, developing 

concepts for noise reduction, and evaluating the following three concepts: (1) an air bubble curtain; 

(2) focusing arrays to create a narrower footprint; and (3) decreasing noise by redesigning airguns. The 

air bubble curtain was selected as the most promising alternative, which led to more refined studies the 

second year (Ayers et al., 2009). A rigorous 3D acoustic analysis of the preferred bubble curtain design, 

including shallow-water seafloor effects and sound attenuation within the bubble curtain, was conducted 

during the second phase of the study. Results of the model indicated that the bubble curtains performed 

poorly at reducing sound levels and are not a viable option for mitigation of lateral noise propagation 

during seismic operations from a moving vessel (Ayers et al., 2010).

2.5.6.7.3. E-Source Airgun

Weilgart (2012) notes that “Bolt Technology Corporation and WesternGeco have attempted to design 

an airgun, the E-source airgun, which reduces the output of high-frequency energy while optimizing it in 

the seismic band of interest, in order to minimize the effects on marine animals. This approach may be 

too piecemeal and not comprehensive enough, however, as other potentially damaging characteristics of 

airgun pulses remain.” The E-Source airgun is still under development, and no additional information is 

available for the public domain at this time (Robert Laws, Schlumberger Cambridge Research Ltd., pers. 

comm. to Bill Streever, BP, January 17, 2013). 

2.5.6.8. Evaluation

The non-airgun alternative would not meet the purpose and need specified in Chapter 1. Alternative 

acoustic sources are in various stages of development, and 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 airgun alternative 

technologies are available now or will be in the next 1-5 years, none are at a stage where they can replace 

airgun arrays outright, however some may be able to be used in select environments when commercially 

available. The non-airgun alternative would not provide the oil and gas industry or the government with 
2-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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, it has not been carried forward for detailed 

environmental impact analysis in this Programmatic EIS. 

In February 2013, BOEM hosted a workshop on “Quieting Technologies for Reducing Noise during 

Seismic Surveying and Pile Driving.” The goals of the workshop included review and evaluation of 

recent developments; identification of system and site-specific requirements for operation of new 

technologies; evaluation of data quality and cost-effectiveness of new technologies; examination of 

potential changes in environmental impacts from new technologies; and identification of which 

technologies, if any, provide the most promise. The workshop report will be available in early 2014.

BOEM recognizes that reducing potentially impactful noise can be a powerful mitigation strategy. 

These quieting technologies are currently in various stages of development. The environmental effects of 

these technologies also need to be further assessed. BOEM will be following the development of these 

technologies closely. As they become commercially available, BOEM will use an adaptive management

approach as discussed in Chapter 1.7.6. This adaptive management approach will allow BOEM to 

consider or even incentivize, at each site-specific level, the current progress and availability of alternative 

sources and determine where and under what conditions these technologies may be required. 

2.6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Alternatives A, B, and C were carried through the detailed environmental impact analysis in 

Chapter 4. Impacts have been summarized in Chapters 2.1.4, 2.2.3, and 2.3.3, respectively. Table 2-4

compares the three alternatives with respect to the impact significance ratings from Chapter 4. 

Alternative C would have the lowest level of impacts for all resources because the main source of 

impacts (seismic airgun surveys in support of oil and gas exploration) would not occur. Alternative C 

would eliminate several IPFs, including airguns, aircraft traffic and noise, and drilling discharges. 

Most impacts under all three alternatives would be negligible or minor, and no major impacts were 

identified. Only a few impacts were identified as moderate under one or more alternatives. These were

as follows: 

• impacts of airguns on marine mammals (moderate under Alternative A and minor to 

moderate under Alternative B); 

• impacts of airguns on sea turtles (negligible to moderate under Alternative A and 

negligible to minor under Alternative B); 

• impacts of airguns on MPAs (negligible to moderate under Alternative A and 

negligible to minor under Alternative B). The moderate rating is based on the 

potential impacts of seismic airgun surveys on sea turtle nesting at a particular coastal 

MPA (Archie Carr NWR) and is reduced to minor under Alternative B; and

• impacts of accidental fuel spills on coastal and marine birds (negligible to moderate 

under all three alternatives).

Potential impacts of Alternatives A and B are broadly similar. However, there are a few important 

differences due to the additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B: 

• The expanded time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would reduce the 

risk of acoustic and vessel strike impacts on this species. Although incidental take

was not modeled for Alternative B, it is estimated that the expanded time-area 

closure would avoid approximately 80 percent of the incidental takes of NARW over 

the period of the Programmatic EIS (as compared with no closures). In contrast, the 

Alternative A time-area closure would be expected to avoid about 67 percent of the 

NARW incidental takes.

• The expanded time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would reduce the 

risk of acoustic and vessel strike impacts on some other marine mammals by 

precluding certain surveys in a portion of the AOI during certain times. Because the 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-67

closure area is a small part of the AOI (7.5% vs. approximately 4.3% under 

Alternative A), the overall impact rating for marine mammals was not substantially 

less under Alternative B when compared to Alternative A. The expanded time-area 

closure may also slightly reduce other (non-marine-mammal) impacts related to the 

level of vessel traffic in coastal waters, but not enough to change any impact ratings.

• The Brevard County time-area closure under Alternative B would reduce the risk of 

disrupting sea turtle nesting in an area that is estimated to support 25 percent of all 

loggerhead turtle nesting in the U.S. Although the closure would affect only a small 

portion of the AOI (0.15%), the impact reduction for sea turtles is expected to be 

substantial, reducing the highest rating from moderate to minor. Because the 

moderate rating for MPAs under Alternative A was based on potential impacts on sea 

turtle nesting at Archie Carr NWR (which is partly within Brevard County), the 

highest rating for MPAs under Alternative B would also be reduced to minor.

• The 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between concurrent seismic surveys under 

Alternative B may slightly reduce acoustic impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, 

and other marine biota. It may ensure that some areas between concurrent surveys 

would not be ensonified to levels that would cause Level A or B harassment of 

marine mammals, and it may reduce the likelihood of multiple exposures to airgun

pulses. The degree of improvement has not been estimated but would not be 

expected to change any impact ratings. Even without this required separation, in 

practice, operators typically maintain a separation of about 17.5 km (9.5 nmi) 

between concurrent surveys to avoid interference (i.e., overlapping reflections 

received from multiple source arrays). New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, 

such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of 

sound at these distances has any effect on marine mammals or other marine species. 

Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA

and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that 

time. BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. 

These subsequent evaluations will also consider any potential aggregate effects from 

existing permitted surveys (if any).

• The required use of PAM under Alternative B would be expected to improve the 

effectiveness of detecting marine mammals as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol. PAM has been used for over 30 years and is required for all NSF seismic 

surveys and many Navy surveys (Mellinger and Heimlich, 2013). It is considered to 

be the only currently available mitigation technique that can detect marine mammals 

at night or during reduced visibility (e.g., fog, high sea states, darkness). The 

capabilities of PAM systems have significantly improved and now include detection, 

classification, and localization software capabilities that allow PAM observers to hear 

a marine mammal vocalize, determine its location, and classify species type (Nosal, 

2013). It is expected that some Level A incidental takes of marine mammals that 

might otherwise occur could be avoided. Some level of PAM use also would be 

expected under Alternative A, but it would be optional.

2.7. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE B–ADDITIONAL TIME-AREA 

CLOSURES, REQUIRED USE OF PASSIVE ACOUSTIC MONITORING, AND 

SEPARATION OF SIMULTANEOUS AIRGUN SURVEYS) 

Section 1502.14(e) of the NEPA implementing regulations requires the agency preparing an EIS to 

identify the Preferred Alternative if one or more exists and identify such alternative in the Final EIS. The 

“agency’s Preferred Alternative” is the alternative that the agency believes would fulfill its statutory 

mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other 

factors. This Agency did not identify a Preferred Alternative in the Draft Programmatic EIS. BOEM has 

reviewed the totality of the record generated by this Programmatic EIS in the public review period to 
2-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

assist in identifying an agency Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is briefly described 

below.

BOEM believes that Alternative B, as the Preferred Alternative, provides the highest practicable level 

of mitigation measures proposed for airgun acoustic sources and the most reasonable level of mitigation 

measures for non-airgun sources. Alternative B provides the most reasonably effective level of protection 

to a variety of resources including marine mammals. While further expansion of NARW time-area 

closures for airgun and non-airgun sources, beyond what is proposed in Alternative B (20 nmi), for 

NARW and other species was recommended by commenters, the decision to expand time-area closures 

beyond the proposed 20-nmi airgun time-area closure was not made at this time. The 20-nmi expanded 

closure area plus the Level B harassment buffer zone for airgun surveys provides sufficient protection 

(see Chapter 4.3.2.1.1). Through adaptive management and the continued assessment of the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures, expansion or contraction of time-area closures could be considered 

in the future and would be based on the availability of new marine mammal density data or other 

technical information that supports the change. BOEM is certain to be influenced by protective measures 

that may arise from ESA and MMPA take authorization processes if they prove to be significantly 

different from those examined in this Programmatic EIS. 

The Preferred Alternative balances the orderly development of BOEM-managed resources with the 

protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments by both allowing activities to occur and by 

incorporating various measures designed to reduce impacts to the environment. The Preferred Alternative 

meets the purpose and need of the proposed action. The purpose and need includes the gathering of stateof-the-practice data about the ocean bottom and subsurface and the use of this information to make 

informed decisions related to business, engineering, and construction for oil and gas, renewable energy, 

and marine minerals programs and projects.

2.7.1. Description

The Preferred Alternative, Alternative B, would, like the proposed action described in Alternative A, 

authorize G&G activities in support of the three BOEM program areas – oil and gas, renewable energy, 

and marine minerals – throughout the entire AOI, from the shoreline (excluding estuaries) to a distance of 

648 km (350 nmi) from shore. The Preferred Alternative includes mitigation measures, in addition to 

those described in Alternative A, to ensure the proposed G&G activities comply with existing laws and 

regulations. These measures would include additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles, 

establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) geographic separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys, required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol, and if BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations continue during periods of reduced 

visibility operators for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, operators must monitor 

the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective monitoring technologies. Those 

technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment, and/or 

PAM. Specific to the 40-km (25-mi) geographic separation distance, new information suggests that, in 

some circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across 

ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any 

effect on marine mammals or other marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this 

measure at the site-specific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information 

available at that time. BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These 

subsequent evaluations will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys 

(if any). The preferred alternative also incorporates the adaptive management process. Through the 

adaptive management process a better understanding of the effectiveness of assigned mitigations could be 

achieved. BOEM, as the decision maker, will then be able to better assess and adjust future management 

decisions and design more effective mitigations if warranted. The mitigation measures included in the 

Preferred Alternative are fully described in Chapter 2 and Appendix C. A flow chart summarizing the 

mitigation measures included in the HRG Survey Protocol is presented in Figure 2-6, and a time-area 

closure summary is included in Table 2-6. The additional costs resulting from some of these measures 

are discussed in Chapter 2.7.6. 

The mitigation measures required for Alternative B discussed in Chapter 2.2 are programmatic in 

nature, and based upon BOEM and BSEE’s adaptive management approach (Chapter 1.7.6). BOEM 

may require additional protective measures if warranted or adjust programmatic mitigations. Any such 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-69

changes would occur in conjunction with a programmatic adaptive management plan that utilizes 

feedback loops or at the site-specific level and would be a result of the site-specific environmental 

analysis under NEPA. Any selection of additional measures will occur after additional programmatic 

analysis of new information (e.g., monitoring data) or a site-specific analysis and consideration of 

information available from both ecological information and monitoring of required mitigations.

2.7.2. Statutory and Missions Requirements

Under Section 18 of the OCSLA, the Secretary is required to prepare and maintain a schedule of 

proposed OCS oil and gas lease sales determined to “best meet national energy needs for a 5-year period 

following its approval or re-approval.” Additional statutory guidance has been provided specific to the 

Atlantic Region related to completing this Programmatic EIS, which evaluates impacts of G&G activities 

so that in the future, data obtained through G&G activities could be used to define and best meet the goals 

of our national energy needs. The conference report to the U.S House of Representatives addressing 

appropriations (Report 111-316) specifically directed MMS to conduct a Programmatic EIS to evaluate 

potential significant environmental effects of multiple G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS to fill 

information gaps relating to resource potential in the OCS. In addition, on September 30, 2008, Congress 

let expire the USDOI appropriations measure that had annually extended no-lease moratoriums for the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas that had been in place since the early 1990’s.

Collectively, this legislation identifies the responsibility that BOEM has in evaluating information 

gaps to include oil and gas activities and input from Congress for BOEM to be prepared to consider 

undertaking oil and gas G&G activities in the Mid- and South-Atlantic OCS in the future.

It should be noted that there are no existing oil and gas leases anywhere in the Atlantic OCS and that 

this Programmatic EIS does not include a NEPA analysis that evaluates a specific proposal for oil and gas 

leasing in the AOI nor does it authorize an OCS lease sale. Prior to any leasing in the AOI, specific areas 

within the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS would need to be identified in the 5-year national leasing 

program. The next 5-year national leasing program is scheduled to be released in 2016. If any areas 

within the AOI were identified as prospective leasing areas in the 5-year lease plan and ultimately 

proposed for leasing, an additional EIS would be prepared to evaluate the impacts of a specific lease sale.

2.7.3. Comments Received

In the Draft Programmatic EIS, BOEM stated its desire “to review the totality of the record generated 

by this Programmatic EIS in the public review period to assist identifying an agency preferred 

alternative.” That has been the foundation for BOEM’s approach to evaluating comments and 

considering changes to the Programmatic EIS as a result.

Over 55,000 comments were received from all levels of government, environmental and 

nongovernmental organizations, the oil and gas energy sector, and individuals. The issues addressed in 

comments fell into several primary categories: statements of opinion, regulatory process, impact analysis, 

affected resources, and mitigation. A more detailed discussion of the comments received can be found in 

Chapter 5.6.2, and responses to comments are provided in Appendix L. 

BOEM has made a number of changes, reflected in the Final Programmatic EIS, many as a result of 

public comments. These changes have largely been in the related areas of affected resources, mitigation

measures, and to provide clarification to previously presented language. The changes have been made to 

help support the purpose and need of the proposed action, while at the same time ensuring adequate 

protection to the resources found in the AOI, a basic tenet of the OCSLA, which directs BOEM to ensure 

G&G data are obtained in a technically safe and environmentally sound manner.

A primary focus area for revision in the Final Programmatic EIS has been the seismic airgun and 

HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2 and Appendix C). Adjustments to the Survey Protocols include the 

following: 

• revised vessel strike avoidance guidelines in compliance with the NMFS BO; 

• DMAs are now included in the NARW time-area closures; 

• no seismic airguns would be allowed within NARW critical habitat or DMAs from 

November 15 through April 15, in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs from 

November 1 and April 30, in the expanded Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA from 
2-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

November 1 to April 30 and in the expanded Southeast U.S. SMA from 

November 15 to April 15;

• HRG surveys for sources operating above 30 kHz would be allowed within NARW

critical habitat and SMAs during the time-area closures. HRG surveys with sources 

operating below 30 kHz (and deemed critical) will be required to implement 

additional mitigation as described in the HRG Survey Protocol; 

• HRG surveys for sources operating above 1.6 kHz would be allowed within the 

time-area closure for nesting sea turtles offshore Brevard County, Florida, from 

May 1 through October 30;

• expanded discussion of marine sanctuaries and avoidance of sensitive benthic 

communities; 

• clarification to the exception for delphinids shutdown in instances when delphinids 

approach survey vessel or equipment; 

• surveys authorized outside of critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs to operate at 

distances such that received levels at the boundaries of these areas do not exceed 

Level B harassment criterion (currently 160 dB re 1 μPa-m rms) as determined by 

field verification or modeling; and

• adaptive management approach would analyze the best available information at the 

time of each site-specific analysis (including new information and monitoring

results) and refine mitigation measures on a programmatic basis or apply additional 

measures, where appropriate, at the site-specific authorization level. 

BOEM has also revised other areas of the document, including alternatives analysis, affected 

environment, and consultation, based on public comments. A detailed discussion of the public comments

received is included in Chapter 5; Table 5-1 contains a summary of the major changes made as a result 

of comments received during the public comment period.

2.7.4. Factors Considered to Determine Preferred Alternative

BOEM has assessed the impacts of the proposed action on significant resources in the AOI, including 

benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, marine and coastal birds, fish resources and EFH, 

threatened and endangered marine species, commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, recreational 

resources, archaeological resources, MPAs, other marine uses, and human resources and land uses. 

Biological and human impacts, public comment, and fulfilling BOEM’s statutory mission and 

responsibilities were considered in selecting the Preferred Alternative. In addition to the factors listed 

above, BOEM screened the incremental change in cost that would occur from implementing the PSO and 

PAM mitigation measures. Cost screening is summarized in Table 2-7. In response to BOEM request, 

the G&G seismic data industry, through the International Association of Geophysical Contractors 

(IAGC), provided information about survey costs. Additional information related to implementing 

mitigation measures has been provided or reviewed by IAGC and CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. (CSA), a 

coastal environmental contractor, that has experience with PSO monitoring and PAM.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, BOEM has expanded some of the mitigation

measures specifically related to vessel strike avoidance measures for marine mammals. Through 

site-specific subsequent NEPA review and analysis, other mitigations may be developed and implemented 

for surveys for which review determines additional mitigation measures are required to specifically 

address and further minimize impacts to marine mammals. In addition, long-term monitoring of 

mitigation measures and refinement of those mitigation measures or the adoption of new mitigation 

measures, through the use of adaptive management, have the potential of further decreasing impacts to 

biological resources, in particular marine mammals and sea turtles. 

2.7.5. Selection Rationale

Alternative B was identified as the Preferred Alternative because this alternative would fulfill the 

statutory mission and responsibilities of this Agency for permitting and authorizing G&G activities in the 

program areas managed by BOEM and balance economic and energy development and environmental 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-71

protection. The selection of Alternative B would allow the collection of ocean bottom and subsurface 

data to go forward with a suite of mitigation measures in place to provide protection of marine wildlife 

(including NARWs and loggerhead and other sea turtles), other marine resources, and cultural resources. 

Alternative B includes mitigation measures that would add direct costs for operators undertaking 

G&G activities in the AOI, e.g., PSO and PAM requirements. Alternative B includes mitigation 

measures that may impose indirect costs in the form of inconvenience of deploying when and where an 

operator desires, or opportunity costs based on the time-value of money if a field season is missed 

because of some combination of time-area closure and deployment delays. Costs were screened for PSO 

and PAM to determine if the cost of implementing these measures was cost-prohibitive.

Alternative B would allow for non-airgun HRG surveys to occur within NARW critical habitat areas 

that are closed to airgun surveys. Both modeling conducted specific to the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS and additional recent sound source modeling verification studies indicate that sounds 

from many of the non-airgun HRG sources experience transmission loss such that received sounds are not 

likely to cause physiological injury to NARWs. 

The selection of Alternative C – No Action for Oil and Gas, Status Quo for Renewable Energy and 

Marine Minerals G&G activity would not fully meet BOEM mission requirements as established in 

OCSLA and other legislation. By letting the long running no-lease moratoriums expire and through the 

specific language in Conference Report 111-316, Congress has indicated the need to consider undertaking 

G&G activities in support of the oil and gas program area. Therefore, the selection of Alternative B

affords BOEM the opportunity to permit G&G activities for the oil and gas program and at the same time 

provides a higher level of protection to marine resources through mitigation measures that are 

incorporated into the alternative when compared to Alternative A. The selection of Alternative A would 

also enable BOEM to undertake G&G activities in support of the oil and gas program area. However 

Alternative A provides a lower level of protection to marine resources.

2.7.6. Cost Increase Associated with the Implementation of Additional Mitigation 

Measures for 2D Seismic Airgun Surveys

Proprietary methods for data acquisition are utilized by individual companies that conduct 

geophysical data collection. Such survey costs for geophysical data acquisition have not been published 

in journals or other citable documents and are not readily available to prepare independent cost estimates. 

To screen the incremental change in cost that would occur from implementing PSOs and PAM as 

mitigation measures, BOEM requested cost information from the G&G seismic data industry through the 

IAGC and CSA, a marine environmental contractor.

IAGC and CSA provided information about survey costs and costs related to implementing PSO and 

PAM mitigation measures. Estimated survey costs and durations were calculated using information about 

survey locations and sizes from permit applications previously submitted for future Atlantic 2D surveys. 

The estimated duration times were then used to calculate estimated total PSO and PAM costs for the 

proposed 2D surveys. Costs associated with PSOs for 2D seismic airgun surveys were estimated to 

increase total survey costs by 0.98-1.54 percent (Table 2-7). Costs associated with PAM for 2D seismic 

airgun surveys were estimated to increase total survey costs by 1.49-2.24 percent (Table 2-7). If both 

mitigation measures were implemented, their costs would result in a less than 4 percent increase in total 

survey costs. This method does not provide a full economic analysis related to cost impacts; however, 

these estimates do provide insight on the scale of the potential increase in cost for the required PSO and 

PAM mitigation measures for 2D seismic surveys. 

2.7.7. New Information and Adaptive Management

During the public comment period for the Draft Programmatic EIS (March 30 to July 2, 2012), 

BOEM received multiple comments that suggested the best available information was not used in the 

Draft Programmatic EIS. BOEM believes that the best available information was used to prepare the 

Draft Programmatic EIS. Since that time, BOEM has updated the analyses with any new information. 

Ultimately, the Final Programmatic EIS contains the best available information. BOEM is aware that 

new information will become available to be utilized in decision-making for future site-specific analyses.

Chapter 1.7.7 contains more detailed examples of areas BOEM is currently following for new 

information relevant to assessment and approval of permit or authorization applications. In addition, 
2-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

BOEM expects that data collected by PSOs, as required by the Survey Protocols (see Chapter 2.1 and 

Appendix C), will be beneficial in fine-tuning site-specific applications.

BOEM will apply an adaptive management approach to consider new information as it becomes 

available to help determine what additional or revised measures would be needed at a site-specific level. 

Adaptive management promotes flexible decision-making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties 

as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. “Other events” 

include additions to the body of knowledge for marine species and how the impacting factors from our 

permitted/authorized actions affect them. The mitigation measures required for Alternative B discussed 

in Chapter 2.2 are programmatic in nature, and based upon the process that BOEM and BSEE develop 

for adaptive management. BOEM may require modifications to protective measures or adjust 

programmatic mitigations to be less restrictive if warranted. Any such changes would occur at the sitespecific level and would be a result of the site-specific environmental analysis under NEPA. Any 

modification of measures will occur after a site-specific analysis and consideration of information 

available from both ecological information and monitoring of required mitigations.

BOEM may also consider requiring new, alternative (quieter) technologies for certain G&G work 

within the AOI as those become commercially available, are analyzed for effects and considered in 

subsequent site-specific analyses (see examples discussed in Chapter 2.5.6). In February 2013, BOEM 

hosted a Quieting Technologies Workshop that examined current or emerging technologies having the 

potential to reduce environmental impacts from traditional airgun use (as well as pile driving and noise

from service vessels). During the conference there was significant discussion regarding ongoing and 

proposed research and development efforts both by industry and private companies to further test and 

develop marine vibroseis technology over the upcoming 2-3 year period. In addition, BOEM is aware 

that the oil/gas industry has formed a Joint Industry Programme on Marine Vibroseis whose goal is to 

develop prototypes and test potential technologies. BOEM acknowledges that these research and 

development efforts will be necessary to both provide new information about the potential viability of 

marine vibroseis and other technologies for commercial applications and also examine potential 

environmental impacts of these technologies when compared with existing technologies. As this 

information becomes available, BOEM will consider requiring and/or incentivizing their use through sitespecific analyses. 
CHAPTER 3 

 

G&G ACTIVITIES AND PROPOSED ACTION SCENARIO

G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-3

3. G&G ACTIVITIES AND PROPOSED ACTION SCENARIO

3.1. INTRODUCTION

A variety of G&G techniques are used to characterize the shallow and deep structure of the shelf, 

slope, and deepwater ocean environments. G&G surveys are conducted to (1) obtain data for 

hydrocarbon exploration and production; (2) aid in siting renewable energy structures; (3) locate potential 

marine mineral resources; (4) identify possible seafloor or shallow depth geologic hazards; and (5) locate 

potential archaeological resources and potential hard bottom habitats for avoidance. The selection of a 

specific technique or suite of techniques is driven by data needs, the target of interest, and the project 

goals. The G&G activities evaluated as part of this Programmatic EIS are described in this chapter, and 

their applicability to the three program areas (oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals) is 

summarized in Table 3-1. The activities include the following: 

• various types of deep penetration seismic surveys used almost exclusively for oil and 

gas exploration;

• other types of surveys and sampling activities used only in support of oil and gas 

exploration, including electromagnetic surveys, deep stratigraphic and shallow test 

drilling, and various remote sensing methods; 

• HRG surveys used in all three program areas to detect and monitor geohazards, 

archaeological resources, and certain types of benthic communities; and

• geological and geotechnical bottom sampling used in all three program areas to 

assess the suitability of seafloor sediments for supporting structures (e.g., platforms, 

pipelines, cables, wind turbines) or to evaluate the quantity and quality of sand for 

beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects.

The following sections describe the types of G&G activities that BOEM is proposing to authorize 

under the proposed action within the three broad program areas (oil and gas, renewable energy, and 

marine minerals). 

3.2. OIL AND GAS G&G SURVEYS

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. Any lease sale 

would include a specific NEPA evaluation for that proposed action. A NEPA evaluation for approving 

the OCS plans that actualize leases for oil and gas exploration and development are also not part of this 

proposed action.

Certain G&G activities are necessary precursor steps needed to judge whether or not there is industry 

interest for oil and gas leasing in the AOI. The scope of this Programmatic EIS includes a NEPA analysis 

of specific types of G&G activity that can take place either before leasing or after. It includes the G&G 

activities needed for operators to make business decisions about acquiring leases and the G&G activities 

that can take place on a lease once it has been acquired by an operator.

In addition to the needs of private industry, G&G surveys provide important information for 

Government decisions. BOEM’s resource evaluation staff uses deep 2D and 3D seismic data for resource 

estimation and bid evaluation to ensure that the Government receives a fair market value for lease blocks 

offered. BOEM’s environmental staff uses G&G data to comply with various environmental laws, such 

as the ESA, MMPA, Magnuson-Stevens FCMA, and CZMA, and to support mitigation measures that 

protect benthic, historic archaeological, and other natural resources. BSEE’s production and development 

staff uses 2D, 3D, and 4D seismic data to map reserves and develop evaluations for conservation of 

resources. BSEE’s regulatory staff specifically uses G&G data to ensure that the proposed site of 

bottom-founded structures is safe (i.e., geohazards review) and that the foundations are properly designed 

(i.e., based on engineering parameters determined from cores), thus ensuring safe operations.
3-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The Gulf of Mexico is an important and mature oil and gas province in the U.S. The practices and 

processes that have been developed in the Gulf represent processes and controls that have been tested and 

that are available for application in the Atlantic.

3.2.1. Background and Jurisdiction

The G&G activities for oil and gas exploration are authorized on the basis of whether or not the 

proposed activities are as follows: (1) before leasing takes place (prelease), authorized by permits; or

(2) on an existing lease (postlease) authorized by OCS plan approvals, plan revisions, or by a requirement 

for notification of BOEM before certain on-lease activities are undertaken. BOEM’s Resource Evaluation 

Program oversees G&G data acquisition and permitting activities, pursuant to regulations at 30 CFR parts 

550 and 551. 

30 CFR part 551 regulates prelease (and some postlease) G&G exploratory (prospecting) operations 

for oil, gas, and sulphur resources or for scientific research on unleased OCS lands and across leases 

owned by a third party. The permit applications that BOEM received in 2009 from industry operators for 

G&G surveying in the Atlantic constitute this type of prelease activity. All prelease G&G surveys require 

a permit under 30 CFR part 551. Each permit application is subject to a site-specific NEPA evaluation, 

which is typically an EA (Table 3-2). In the AOI, where these activities previously have not been subject 

to a systematic evaluation, this Programmatic EIS provides that evaluation, from which site-specific 

evaluations may be tiered under the NEPA regulations (40 CFR § 1502.20).

30 CFR part 550 regulates on-lease oil and gas activity on the OCS after a lease is acquired. 

Postlease activities and G&G activities required to support them are governed by a series of OCS plans, 

the approval of any of which could result in G&G activities (Table 3-2): (1) an Exploration Plan (EP) 

guides the drilling of exploration and delineation wells; and (2) depending on the OCS Planning Area, a 

Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) or a Development and Production Plan (DPP) 

guides the drilling of development wells and installation of surface or subsurface production facilities.

A NEPA evaluation is part of the approval process for OCS plans under the oil and gas program. The 

evaluation includes a proposed action at a specific location with specific tool types and intensity of G&G

activity, which may be an EA or an EIS. The consultations required under environmental law for 

protected species are typically carried out at the time of the NEPA evaluation for the proposed action of a 

lease sale where all actions consequent to a lease sale are examined in an EIS, and not for each and every 

OCS plan.

Many postlease activities are guided by NTLs, all of which are posted to BOEM regional office 

websites. The NTLs are formal documents that perform a variety of functions. Among these functions 

are the following: (1) provide clarification, description, or interpretation of a regulation or OCS standard; 

(2) provide guidelines on the implementation of a special lease stipulation or regional requirement; 

(3) provide a better understanding of the scope and meaning of a regulation by explaining BOEM 

interpretation of a requirement; or (4) transmit administrative information such as current telephone 

listings and a change in BOEM personnel or office address. It should be noted that NTLs are referenced 

in the permit approval letters and as such become a condition of the approval. The G&G information 

required as part of postlease OCS plans is specified in 30 CFR § 550.214. Part of it consists of a shallow 

hazards survey and report for each proposed well. The report contains an assessment of any seafloor and 

subsurface geological and manmade features or conditions that may adversely affect drilling operations. 

The shallow hazards survey and report outputs are guided by NTL 2008-G05 (“Shallow Hazards 

Program”) (USDOI, MMS, 2008a) and NTL 2005-G07 (“Archaeological Resource Surveys and 

Reports”) (USDOI, MMS, 2005). All of the hardware and tools for both types of surveys are typically 

run during the same deployment.

Ancillary activities are postlease operations by lease owners in furtherance of developing oil and gas 

resources on their lease. Ancillary activities are defined in 30 CFR § 550.105 and regulated in 

30 CFR §§ 550.207 through 550.210 and include geophysical, geological and geotechnical, HRG, 

archaeological, biological, physical oceanographic, meteorological, socioeconomic, or other surveys; or 

various types of modeling studies. This Agency issued NTL 2009-G34 (“Ancillary Activities”) (USDOI, 

MMS, 2009e) to provide guidance and clarification on conducting ancillary activities in BOEM’s Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region. The NTL provides guidance for each type of ancillary activity, the type and level 

of BOEM review, follow-up actions, and post-survey report requirements. NTL 2009-G34 specifies that 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-5

operators must notify BOEM in writing at least 30 calendar days (30 CFR 250.208(a)) before conducting 

any of the following types of ancillary activities:

• those involving bottom disturbance, independent of water depth, including 

ocean-bottom cable surveys, node surveys, and time-lapse (4D) surveys; and

• those involving piston-/gravity-coring or the recovery of sediment specimens by 

grab-sampling or similar technique and/or any dredging or other ancillary activity 

that disturbs the seafloor (including deployment and retrieval of bottom cables, 

anchors, or other equipment).

Ancillary activities are subject to conditional NEPA reviews (Table 3-2) depending on what activity 

is being proposed. If BOEM determines that the type of proposed activity necessitates revising an 

existing OCS plan, a NEPA review is triggered which is typically an EA. In addition to the NEPA review 

carried out before a lease sale, the operator would have an approved EP and/or a DOCD or DPP, each of 

which would have been subject to a NEPA review as part of initial plan approval.

3.2.2. Types of Surveys

The oil and gas industry conducts a variety of G&G activities, both prelease and postlease. Typical 

prelease activities include deep penetration seismic surveys to explore and evaluate deep geologic 

formations. Two-dimensional (2D) seismic surveys usually are designed to cover thousands of square 

miles or entire geologic basins as a means to geologically screen large areas for potential hydrocarbon 

prospectivity. Three-dimensional (3D) surveys can consist of several hundred OCS blocks and provide 

much better resolution to evaluate hydrocarbon potential in smaller areas or specific prospects. Other 

prelease surveys include largely passive data gathering methods such as electromagnetic, gravity, and 

magnetic surveys, as well as remote sensing surveys from aircraft and satellites.

Postlease activities conducted by operators can include additional seismic surveys, HRG surveys, and 

bottom sampling (including stratigraphic wells, shallow test wells, and geotechnical sampling). Examples 

of postlease seismic surveys include vertical seismic profiling with geophone receivers placed in a 

wellbore, and 4D (time-lapse) surveys to monitor reservoirs during production. The HRG surveys are 

conducted on leases and along pipeline routes to evaluate the potential for geohazards, archaeological 

resources, and certain types of benthic communities. Geotechnical sampling is conducted to assess 

seafloor conditions with respect to siting facilities such as platforms and pipelines. 

Categories of G&G activities conducted for oil and gas exploration are listed below and discussed in 

the following sections:

• deep penetration seismic surveys;

• HRG surveys;

• electromagnetic surveys;

• deep stratigraphic and shallow test drilling (COST wells); 

• bottom sampling; and

• remote sensing surveys.

3.2.2.1. Deep Penetration Seismic Surveys

Deep penetration seismic surveys are conducted by industry to obtain data on geological formations 

to as deep as several thousand meters below the seafloor. A survey vessel tows an array of airguns that 

emit acoustic energy pulses into the seafloor. The acoustic signals reflect (or refract) off subsurface 

layers having acoustic impedance contrast and are recorded by hydrophones that are towed on streamers 

behind the ship (Figure 3-1) or positioned on the seafloor as autonomous nodes or cables, or in rare 

instances spaced at various depths in vertically positioned cables. Data from these surveys can be used to 

assess potential hydrocarbon structural and stratigraphic traps and reservoirs and additionally help to 

optimally locate exploration and development wells, thus maximizing extraction and production from a 

reservoir. Deep penetration seismic surveys are associated only with oil and gas exploration, not with 

renewable energy development or marine minerals extraction.
3-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

State-of-the-art computer interpretation and mapping systems are used to depict the subsurface in two

or three dimensions and can enhance various aspects of the dataset. A 2D dataset is acquired by using 

wider line spacing and is used to identify regional structural geology and to link known productive areas 

over large geographic areas. In contrast, 3D seismic data enable industry to identify and delineate with 

greater precision where the most economically viable hydrocarbon prospects may be located

(Figure 3-2). The 3D technology is also used to identify previously overlooked hydrocarbon-bearing 

zones and new productive horizons. However, because 3D modeling requires much denser data coverage 

(i.e., closer line spacing) than 2D seismic surveys, areas already covered using 2D techniques may be 

resurveyed. Further, 3D surveys may be repeated over producing fields to characterize production 

reservoirs. These 4D, or time-lapse 3D, surveys are used predominantly as a reservoir monitoring tool to 

evaluate reservoir variance over time.

A typical marine seismic source is a sleeve-type airgun array that releases compressed air into the 

water, creating an acoustical energy pulse that penetrates the seafloor. (See Chapter 3.5 for more

information about airguns, including sound source levels.) An integrated navigational system is used to 

keep track of where the airguns are fired, the position of the streamer cables, and the depth of the streamer 

cables. The end of the cable is tracked with global positioning system (GPS) satellites. Radar reflectors 

are routinely placed on tail buoys for detection by other vessels.

Seismic acquisition and processing technology continuously evolve. Consequently, in structurally 

complex areas and those with complicated subsurface geology, when a geophysical contractor develops a 

proprietary technology that better images the subsurface geology, surveys using that technology are often 

acquired over an area where a previous survey with different technology was performed. 

3.2.2.1.1. 2D Seismic Exploration Surveys

2D seismic exploration surveys are conducted by geophysical contractors either on a proprietary or 

speculative basis. Speculative surveys are generally conducted over large multi-block areas and can be 

sold to numerous clients to recover costs and make profits, whereas proprietary surveys usually cover 

only a few blocks for an individual client that will have exclusive use of the data. Although the number 

of 2D surveys is small compared to 3D surveys, they are important as 2D surveys can cover a larger area 

with less data density in less detail, resulting in a lower cost per area covered. Each geophysical 

contractor has a proprietary method of data acquisition that may vary depending on their seismic target 

and data processing capabilities. This makes each contractor’s data set unique and does not lend itself to

combining with other surveys. 

Ships conducting 2D surveys are typically 60-90 m (200-300 ft) long and tow a single source array 

100-200 m (328-656 ft) behind the ship and about 5-10 m (16-33 ft) below the sea surface. The source 

array typically consists of three subarrays of six or seven airguns each and measures approximately

12.5-18 m (41-60 ft) long and 16-36 m (52-118 ft) wide. Following behind the source array by 

100-200 m (328-656 ft) is a single streamer approximately 5-10 km (2.7-5.4 nmi) long. The ship tows 

this apparatus at a speed of about 4.5-6 kn (8.3-11 km/hr). About every 16 s (i.e., a distance of 37.5 m 

[123 ft] for a vessel traveling at 4.5 kn [8.3 km/hr]), the airgun array is fired; the actual time between 

firings varies depending on ship speed.

While surveying, and after a prescribed ramp-up of the noise to full operation intensity, a vessel will 

travel down a linear track for a period of time until a full line of data is acquired. Upon reaching the end 

of the track, the ship takes 2-3 hr to turn around and start down another track. Depending upon whether 

the survey is a reconnaissance or detailed 2D survey, the spacing between tracks can vary. Example grids 

range from 10 km by 6 km (5.4 nmi by 3.2 nmi) for a reconnaissance survey to 1.8 km by 1.8 km 

(1 nmi by 1 nmi) for a more detailed survey. Data acquisition takes place day and night and may continue 

for days, weeks, or months, depending on the size of the survey area.

3.2.2.1.2. 3D Seismic Exploration Surveys

As with 2D surveys, almost all 3D seismic exploration surveys are conducted by geophysical 

contractors as speculative or multi-client surveys conducted over large, multi-block areas. Proprietary 

surveys are also conducted over only a few blocks. Conventional, single-vessel 3D surveys are also 

referred to as narrow azimuth 3D surveys.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-7

Ships conducting 3D surveys are generally 80-90 m (262-295 ft) long, or slightly larger than those 

used in 2D surveys since they are towing more equipment. These ships typically tow two source arrays 

aligned in parallel with one another 100-200 m (328-656 ft) behind them. The two source arrays are 

identical to each other and are the same as those used in the 2D surveys described previously. Following 

another 100-200 m (328-656 ft) behind the dual source arrays are 6-12 streamer cables 3-8 km

(1.6-4.3 nmi) long and spread out over a breadth of 600-1,500 m (1,969-4,922 ft). 

The survey ship tows the apparatus at a speed of 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). About every 16 s (i.e., a distance 

of 37.5 m [123 ft] for a vessel traveling at 4.5 kn [8.3 km/hr]), one of the dual airgun arrays is fired. The 

other array is fired 16 s later. To achieve the desired spacing, the time between firings varies depending 

on ship speed. While surveying, a ship travels down a track for 12-20 hr (i.e., a distance of 100-166 km

[54-90 nmi] at 4.5 kn [8.3 km/hr]), depending on the size of the survey area. Upon reaching the end of 

the track, the ship takes 2-3 hr to turn around and start down another track. This procedure takes place 

day and night and may continue for days, weeks, or months, depending on the size of the survey area. 

3.2.2.1.3. Wide Azimuth and Related Multi-Vessel Surveys

In single-vessel 3D surveys, only a limited subset of the reflected wave field can be recorded because 

of the narrow range of source-receiver azimuths. New methods such as wide azimuth (WAZ), rich 

azimuth, and multi-azimuth towed-streamer acquisition have emerged in the last few years to improve the 

data resolution problems inherent in traditional marine seismic surveys. These new methods provide 

seismic data with better illumination, higher signal-to-noise ratio, and improved resolution.

Wide, rich, and multi-azimuth acquisition configurations involve multiple vessels operating 

concurrently in a variety of source vessel-to-acquisitional vessel geometries. Several source vessels 

(usually two to four) are used in coordination with single or dual receiver vessels either in a parallel or 

rectangular arrangement with a 1,200-m (3,937-ft) vessel spacing to maximize the azimuthal quality of 

the data acquired. It is not uncommon to have sources also deployed from the receiver vessels in addition 

to source-only vessels; this improves the signal-to-noise ratio, helps illuminate complex geology in 

sub-salt areas, and provide natural attenuation of multiple reflections from the water surface.

Coil surveys are a further refinement of the WAZ acquisition of subsalt data and are a proprietary 

acquisitional technique developed by WesternGeco (Schlumberger). These surveys can consist of a 

single source/receiver arrangement or a multi-vessel operation with multiple sources, with seismic data 

being acquired while the vessels follow a circular to spiral path. This method was initially developed as a 

single-vessel alternative to WAZ surveys but has evolved into a multi-vessel technology.

3.2.2.1.4. Nodes and Ocean Bottom Cable Surveys

Ocean bottom cable surveys were originally designed to enable seismic surveys in congested areas 

such as producing fields with their many platforms and production facilities. New technology has also 

allowed for autonomous receiving units (nodes) to be deployed by remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). 

These surveys have been found to be useful for obtaining four-component (4C) data (seismic pressure, as 

well as vertical and two horizontal motions of the water bottom, or seafloor), yielding more information 

about the fluids and rock characteristics in the subsurface. With standard hydrophones, these surveys can 

be conducted to about 183 m (600 ft), but with newer technology can be conducted at water depths of up 

to 2,500 m (8,200 ft) or more.

Autonomous nodes and ocean bottom cable surveys require the use of multiple ships (usually two 

ships for cable layout/pickup, one ship for recording, one ship for shooting, and two smaller utility boats). 

These ships are generally smaller than those used in streamer operations, and the utility boats can be very 

small. Operations begin by deploying the nodes in a grid pattern by means of an ROV or by dropping 

cables off the back of the layout boat. Cable length is typically 4.2 km (2.3 nmi) but can be up to 12 km 

(6.5 nmi). Groups of seismic detectors (usually hydrophones and vertical motion geophones) are attached 

to the nodes and cable in intervals of 25-50 m (82-164 ft). Multiple nodes and cables are laid parallel to 

each other with a 50-m (164-ft) interval between cables. When the node or cable is in place, a ship 

towing a dual airgun array passes between the cables, firing every 25 m (82 ft). Sometimes a faster 

source ship speed of 6 kn (11 km/hr) instead of the normal 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr) speed is used, with an 

increase in time between airgun firings.
3-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

After a source line is acquired, the source ship takes about 10-15 min to turn around and pass down 

between the next two nodes or cables. When a node or cable is no longer needed to record seismic data, it 

is retrieved by the ROV or cable pickup ship and moved to the next recording position. A particular node 

or cable can lay on the bottom anywhere from 2 hr to several days, depending on operation conditions. In 

some cases, nodes or cables may be left on the bottom for future 4D (time-lapse) surveys (see below).

3.2.2.1.5. Vertical Cable Surveys

Vertical cable surveys, although uncommon, are similar to ocean bottom cable surveys in that the 

receivers are deployed and then acoustic pulses are output by a source vessel. However, they are 

substantially different from ocean bottom surveys in that the receivers are located at several locations 

along a vertical cable that is anchored to the ocean bottom.

These surveys can be conducted in water depths up to about 2,500 m (8,200 ft). Two identically 

configured boats are used during a vertical cable survey. Both boats are used initially to place the cables. 

During the survey, one boat is used as a source boat and the other to recover and redeploy the cables. The 

vertical cables are deployed on two overlapping grids. On each grid, vertical cables are deployed every 

2 km (1.1 nmi). One grid is staggered relative to the other such that any one vertical cable is no more 

than 1.4 km (0.75 nmi) from its closest neighbor. Normally, 28 or 32 vertical cables are deployed at a 

time.

At the bottom of each vertical cable is an anchor composed of 680 kg (1,500 lb) of steel. The active 

section of the cable is 375 m (1,230 ft) long and contains 16 specially constructed hydrophones spaced 

25 m (82 ft) apart. At the top are buoyant floats to keep the cable as vertical as possible. Once the cables 

are in place, the source boat begins shooting in such a way that each vertical cable receives shots at a 

distance of 5 km (2.7 nmi) in all directions. This is accomplished by traveling down lines parallel to the 

grid of vertical cables. Once the shooting boat shoots a line 1 km (0.54 nmi) beyond the first row of 

vertical cables, that row is recovered and redeployed. Cables may be left in place for hours or days, 

depending on the size of the survey area and operating conditions. Vessel speed is normally 4-5 kn

(7.4-9.3 km/hr). The dual airgun array is the same as normally used in 3D streamer surveys.

3.2.2.1.6. 4D (Time-Lapse) Surveys

3D surveys may be repeated over oil and/or gas producing fields to characterize production 

reservoirs. These 4D, or time-lapse, surveys are becoming more frequent as the technology for analyzing 

the data is developed. The purpose of 4D surveys is to monitor the depletion of the reservoir and locate 

zones of bypassed production in an already discovered oil or gas field. A time-lapse survey requires 

repeated surveys with highly accurate navigation to ensure the same subsurface points are measured on 

each survey. Time-lapse surveys are usually repeated every 6 months to a year, but occasionally the 

repeat interval can be as short as 4 months.

Time-lapse surveys can use either seismic streamer cables, ocean bottom cables, or autonomous and 

tethered nodes to house the seismic detectors. In any case, the procedure closely resembles those 

described previously for 3D and ocean bottom cable surveys. The main difference is in the size of the 

survey area. Since the oil or gas field already has been located, the survey area is much smaller and 

survey time is much shorter. An average survey takes 2-4 weeks and can cover 20 km2

 (5.8 square

nautical miles [nmi2

]). Although the technique initially used streamer cables, the difficulty in locating 

sensors with suitable precision and towing of long streamers in congested areas led to the use of ocean 

bottom cables deployed during data acquisition then to fixed bottom cables for reservoir monitoring, 

which then evolved to the placement of autonomous and tethered nodes. When fixed bottom cables or 

nodal receivers are used, the survey time, after the first survey, is greatly reduced since all that has to be 

done is connect the fixed bottom cable receiver array to the recording instruments and start shooting.

3.2.2.1.7. Vertical Seismic Profile Surveys

Vertical seismic profiling is a technique carried out by placing geophone receivers down a borehole at 

different depths, and with an external acoustic source near the wellbore (zero-offset vertical seismic 

profile [VSP]) or on a vessel at different distances from the wellbore (walk-away VSP). These surveys 

are used to obtain information about the nature of the seismic signal, as well as more information about 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-9

the geology surrounding the vertical array of sensors. The VSP data can be cross-correlated with shiptowed seismic survey datasets to refine identification of lithologic changes and the content of formation 

fluids. Zero-offset and walk-away VSPs are common during the development and production phases of 

activity.

In all VSPs, sensors geophones are lowered down a borehole before production tubing is placed in the 

wellbore or the well is abandoned. The sensors geophones lowered down the borehole can be connected 

together in strings of 16-36 receivers spaced from 15-150 m (49-492 ft) apart, depending on the survey 

objective and other variables. After lowering the sensor geophone string to the lowest portion of the 

borehole to be surveyed, the sensors are temporarily clamped to the side of the wellbore and seismic

signals are recorded. Subsequently, the sensors geophones are repositioned and the next set of seismic 

signals recorded. Seismic airgun sources used in VSPs are the same as those used in conventional 

seismic airgun surveys. Zero-offset surveys are conducted using a small-volume, single airgun suspended 

by a crane located on the deck of the drilling rig.

Walk-away surveys utilize a workboat with only four to eight airguns. The same airgun arrays used 

for conventional 2D and 3D surveys are used for 3D VSPs. These airgun arrays can vary from 

1,000-5,000 in3

, depending upon the depth of the objective. Typical airgun array depths are 7-10 m 

(23-33 ft) below the surface. One method used to provide 3D coverage is for the source vessel to travel in 

a spiral track. The source vessel begins the spiral track at a distance of 200 m (656 ft) from the borehole 

and keeps the distance between spirals equal to the number of arrays times the array separation. First, one 

airgun array fires, then 12-14 s later the other airgun array fires. At a typical vessel speed of 4.5-5 kn

(8.3-9.3 km/hr), the distance between firings is between 28 and 36 m (92 and 118 ft). The source vessel 

continues on the spiral out to a distance of up to 9 km (4.9 nmi). If the borehole sensor string needs to be 

raised to another level, the whole procedure is repeated.

Survey duration depends on the type of survey, objectives, cost of the drilling rig, and equipment 

used. A zero-offset or walk-away survey can take less than a day. By comparison, a 3D survey may 

require up to 10 days to complete; however, 30 percent of that time may be with the airguns in standby 

mode.

3.2.2.2. High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys

High-resolution site surveys are conducted by industry to investigate the shallow subsurface for 

geohazards and soil conditions in one or more lease blocks, as well as to identify potential benthic 

biological communities (or habitats) and archaeological resources in compliance with 30 CFR § 550.201, 

30 CFR § 550.207, 30 CFR § 550.194, and 30 CFR § 250.1007. The data are used for initial site 

evaluation for drilling rig emplacement and for platform or pipeline design and emplacement. The HRG

survey and report outputs are guided by NTL 2008-G05 (“Shallow Hazards Program”) (USDOI, MMS, 

2008a) and NTL 2005-G07 (“Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports”) (USDOI, MMS, 2005). 

The HRG surveys for oil and gas exploration use several tools including airgun(s), side-scan sonar, 

magnetometers, shallow and medium penetration subbottom profilers, and single or multibeam depth 

sounders. All of the tools for both hazards and archaeological surveys are typically run during the same 

deployment. However, for areas in water depths greater than 200 m (656 ft), BOEM may allow operators 

to substitute previously collected 3D seismic reflection data for shallow or medium penetration subbottom 

profiler data (although not for pipeline pre-installation surveys). Some HRG operations for an oil and gas 

exploration site may consist of a ship towing an airgun about 25 m (82 ft) behind the ship and a 600-m 

(1,969-ft) streamer cable with a tail buoy. The ship travels at 3-3.5 kn (5.6-6.5 km/hr), and the airgun is 

fired every 7-8 s (or about every 12.5 m [41 ft]). The other acoustic sources typically are operated 

concurrently with the airgun array. Typical surveys cover one lease block, which is usually 4.8 km 

(2.6 nmi) on a side. BOEM has identified all blocks in the Atlantic OCS as having a high probability for 

the presence of historic archaeological resources (i.e., shipwrecks) and requires surveys using a maximum 

of a 30-m (98-ft) line spacing. Including line turns, the time to survey one block is about 36 hr; however, 

streamer and airgun deployment and other operations add to the total survey time. In some instances, 

tighter line spacing may be necessary to acquire the appropriate level of survey coverage and data quality 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012b).
3-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3D high-resolution surveys using ships towing multiple streamer cables have become commonplace. 

Since multiple streamers are towed, the ships tend to be slightly larger (47 m vs. 37 m [154 ft vs. 121 ft]). 

Up to six streamers 100-200 m (328-656 ft) long are used with a tri-cluster of airguns. With this system, 

66 lines are necessary per block, which take about 5 days to collect.

For postlease engineering studies involving the placement of production facilities and pipelines in 

deep water, HRG surveys are often conducted with AUVs equipped with a multibeam depth sounder, 

side-scan sonar, and a chirp subbottom profiler. Geophysical contractors have been using AUVs since 

about 2000 to make detailed maps of the seafloor before they start building subsea infrastructure. 

3.2.2.3. Electromagnetic Surveys

Electromagnetic surveys are often used in conjunction with seismic surveys to help delineate potential 

oil and gas reservoirs. Many geological processes in the crust and upper mantle of the seafloor involve 

the interaction of fluid phases with surrounding rock. The conductivities of hydrothermal phases are 

different from those of host rock, and collectively they offer distinct profiles of electrical 

conductivity/resistivity, depending on the specific geological process involved. There are two practical 

electromagnetic techniques applicable to oil and gas exploration: controlled source electromagnetic 

(CSEM) surveys and magnetotelluric (MT) surveys. Both have been used mainly in the last decade, with 

the CSEM method more widely used in deepwater environments (Constable, 2010).

3.2.2.3.1. Controlled Source Electromagnetic Surveys

The CSEM methods have been applied worldwide to help distinguish “economic” hydrocarbon 

accumulations from either no hydrocarbons or non-commercial hydrocarbon saturations (Constable, 

2010; Darnet et al., 2010). The CSEM technique, sometimes referred to as seabed logging, induces very 

low frequency (typically less than 2 Hz) electromagnetic signals into the upper layers of the seafloor via a 

towed dipole. The signals are propagated laterally to an array of receivers kilometers away. The 

variations in the electromagnetic field relative to the geometry of the receiver arrays and distance provide 

a conductivity/resistivity profile of the seafloor. From the profile, potential hydrocarbon reservoirs can be 

differentiated from water reservoirs and surrounding rock. A simplifying assumption, which becomes a 

pitfall, is that the rocks in the subsurface consist only of sandstones and shales. The resistivity of the 

reservoir changes with its fluid (oil, gas, or water). However, if limestones or a more resistive rock 

occurs in the subsurface, a false positive can occur, resulting in a dry well. In this technique, two cables 

(one a few hundred feet longer than the other) are joined together and towed by a ship. Attached to the 

end of each cable is a metal cylinder about 3 m (10 ft) long and 0.3 m (1 ft) in diameter. At regular 

intervals, an electrical signal is input through the cables and into the seafloor. These electrical signals are 

detected by previously deployed receivers 2-10 km (1.1-5.4 nmi) away from the source and arranged in a 

line or profile. The receivers are attached to degradable concrete blocks like those used in the 

MT technique. Inside the receivers are recording devices that allow for recording for a few days to 

several weeks. When the recording is finished, an acoustic pinger releases the receiver recording box

from the anchor, and the recording box floats to the surface for retrieval.

3.2.2.3.2. Magnetotelluric Surveys

Magnetotelluric surveys are passive measurement of the earth’s electromagnetic fields. In this 

technique, no electrical currents are induced into the earth, but the receiver device detects the natural 

electrical and magnetic fields present in the earth. Ships are used to deploy and retrieve the recording 

devices. These devices are about 1.5 m (5 ft) high by 1 m (3 ft) on a side and are attached to a degradable 

concrete anchor about 60 centimeters (cm) (24 inches [in]) on a side, 15 cm (6 in) high, and weighing 

about 136 kg (300 lb). Also attached to the recording device are four arms sticking out from each side of 

the box with an electrode on each end. These arms are about 20 m (66 ft) long and made of polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) pipe. Inside the recording box is a magnetometer and a long-term recording device, that 

allows the box to remain on the water bottom for days at a time. The recording box is retrieved by using 

an acoustic pinger that releases the anchor from the recording box, which then floats to the surface.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-11

3.2.2.4. Deep Stratigraphic and Shallow Test Drilling

Drilling of deep COST wells and shallow test wells are typically off-lease activities, especially in 

frontier areas, or they can be carried out on a leased block if it does not interfere with the leaseholder's 

activities. Although unlikely, these activities could occur in the AOI during the time period of this 

Programmatic EIS. As defined by 30 CFR § 551.1, a deep stratigraphic test well must penetrate at least 

152 m (500 ft) into the seafloor; otherwise, it is classified as shallow test drilling. 

The COST wells typically are drilled to obtain information about regional stratigraphy, reservoir 

beds, and hydrocarbon potential. COST wells are drilled away from any potential petroleum-bearing 

feature to minimize the chance of encountering oil or gas. The data are used to evaluate structural 

interpretations derived from and calibrate subsurface rock units with geophysical surveys, determine the 

age of sediments drilled, and estimate the potential for hydrocarbon accumulation and for determining the 

presence, absence, or quality of gas hydrate deposits. Drilling would be done by conventional, rotary 

drilling equipment from a drilling rig; the selection of a moored vs. dynamically positioned drilling rig 

would depend on water depth, site-specific seafloor conditions, and rig availability. Under BOEM 

regulations, an EA is automatically required for drilling of a COST well.

Five COST wells were drilled by industry offshore the U.S. Atlantic Coast between 1975 and 1979. 

Water depths of these wells ranged from 41 to 819 m (136 to 2,686 ft), and total depth (penetration) 

ranged from 4,040-6,667 m (13,254-21,874 ft) (USDOI, BOEM, 2011c). 

Shallow test wells can be drilled postlease to allow operators to place wireline testing equipment into 

a borehole to evaluate subsurface properties such as the presence of gas hydrates. Drilling would be done 

by conventional, rotary drilling equipment from a drilling barge or boat.

It is likely that there might be some interest in a test program for gas hydrates within the proposed 

action scenario period, at least in the South Atlantic Planning Area in the Blake Plateau region. These 

wells could be considered either COST wells or shallow test drilling, depending on the penetration depth. 

Gas hydrate wells typically penetrate from 152 m (500 ft) to a few thousand feet below the seafloor, 

where gas hydrates are found because of the physico-chemical requirements for their stability. In the 

Gulf of Mexico, test programs for gas hydrates were fielded in 2005 (Birchwood et al., 2008) and 2009 

(Boswell et al., 2009). The deepest well for the 2009 test program was 1,122 m (3,680 ft) below the 

seafloor.

3.2.2.5. Bottom Sampling

Coring or grab sampling methods typically are used to obtain sediment samples for geological and/or 

geotechnical analyses. Geotechnical sampling and testing are used in engineering studies for placement 

of structures such as platforms and pipelines. Usually, a program of bottom sampling and shallow coring 

is conducted simultaneously using a small marine drilling vessel.

“Deep” geologic cores are obtained by standard rotary coring. Rotary corers are designed as double 

or triple tube devices where the innermost tube acts as a core liner; the middle tube, if present, acts as a 

holder; and the rotating outer tube carries the hollow drill bit. As the bit cuts down through the soils and 

rock, the core created passes into the liner in a relatively undisturbed state (Fugro, 2003; International 

Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering [ISSMGE], 2005). The cores obtained by this 

method vary in diameter from 3 to 20 cm (1 to 8 in) and can penetrate several hundred meters beneath the 

seafloor.

Other methods used during geotechnical surveys include vibracorers, gravity corers, piston corers, 

box corers, and jet probes (Fugro, 2003; ISSMGE, 2005). Bottom sampling involves devices that 

penetrate only a few centimeters to several meters below the seafloor. Samples of surficial sediments are 

typically obtained by dropping a piston core or gravity core (“dart”), essentially a weighted tube, to the 

ocean floor and recovering it with an attached wire line. Grab samplers are one of the most common 

methods of retrieving sediment samples or biological samples from the seabed. A grab sampler is a 

device that collects a sample of the topmost layers of the seabed by bringing two steel clamshells together 

and cutting a bite from the soil.
3-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.2.2.6. Passive Remote-Sensing Surveys

Remote-sensing surveys use passive detection methods that do not involve an active acoustic sound 

source. Gravity, gravity gradiometry, and marine magnetic surveys are remote-sensing surveys. While 

often acquired from ships, marine gravity measurements can also be acquired by satellite-determined 

radar altimeter measurements of ocean surface slope. Radar imaging is done by satellite and used to 

detect oil slicks on the sea surface. Aeromagnetic surveys are conducted by fixed-wing aircraft and look 

for deep crustal structure, salt-related structure, and intra-sedimentary anomalies. 

3.2.2.6.1. Gravity Surveys

Marine gravity data can be collected with instruments on the seafloor, in boreholes, from fixed wing 

aircrafts, or from helicopters, but usually are collected from ships. In some cases, the data are collected 

during a seismic survey. However, the preferred method has been to use dedicated ships (about 50 m 

[164 ft] long) in order to acquire more precise data. With the advent of GPS navigation and larger, more 

stable seismic ships, it is now possible to achieve the same order of accuracy with meters placed in 

seismic ships as in dedicated ships. Data grids for gravity surveys range from 1.6 by 8 km to 9.7 by

32 km (0.9 by 4.3 nmi to 5.2 by 17 nmi). Helicopters also may be used to collect gravity data, but such 

surveys are rare because of the logistics required to keep the craft in the air for extended periods far from 

shore.

3.2.2.6.2. Gravity Gradiometry

Measuring the earth's gravity gradient is now possible with the release of DoD technology. The 

instrument is housed in a box located on a 60-m (197-ft) survey ship or fixed-wing aircraft. In shallow 

water, ships survey a 0.25- by 1-km (0.13- by 0.54-nmi) grid, and in deep water, a 1- by 2-km (0.54- by 

1.08-nmi) grid is used. Typically, a 20-block area is selected for survey, and a ship traveling at 11 kn

(20 km/hr) can complete a survey in about 2 days. Gravity gradiometry surveys are also conducted with 

fixed-wing aircraft that fly at a speed of about 100 kn (185 km/hr) and altitudes of 80-100 m (262-328 ft) 

(DiFrancesco et al., 2009).

3.2.2.6.3. Marine Magnetic Surveys

Marine magnetic surveys measure the earth's magnetic field for the purpose of determining structure 

and sedimentary properties of subsurface horizons. Magnetic surveys are also conducted to detect 

shipwrecks. These surveys are usually conducted in conjunction with a seismic survey, allowing the 

navigation information to be used for both surveys. The development of low-power digital sensors has 

allowed the sensor package to be towed behind the seismic source array, which has greatly improved 

operational efficiency of magnetic surveys. The sensor is housed in a cylindrical package measuring 

approximately 1 m (3 ft) long and 15-20 cm (6-8 in) in diameter and weighing about 14 kg (31 lb). The 

electronics package inside the case contains about 1 liter (L) (0.3 gallons [gal]) of chemically inert 

nontoxic fluid. The sensor is towed behind one of the subarrays of the seismic source array at distances 

of 50, 100, or 150 m (164, 328, or 492 ft) behind the array, although the 100-m (328-ft) distance is the 

most common. The sensor is typically towed at a depth of 3 m (10 ft) and makes use of depth devices 

mounted on the cable to maintain a constant depth. In magnetic surveys for archaeological resources, the 

instrument is towed 6 m (20 ft) above the seafloor.

3.2.2.6.4. Radar Imaging

Radar imaging by satellite can be used to detect oil slicks on the sea surface because oil molecules 

reaching the sea surface form a thin layer that dampens the ocean surface capillary waves. The detection 

of oil slicks requires quiet water conditions and consequently is limited by sea state as well as satellite 

position and frequency of coverage. The resolution of the radar images ranges from 8 to 100 m 

(26-328 ft), with a swath width range of 50-500 km (27-270 nmi). The radar satellite is in a near polar 

orbit at an altitude of 800 km (432 nmi). The cycle time for a duplicate orbit is 24 days, but a common 

spot on the earth can be revisited every 5 days and surveyed with different viewing parameters. BOEM 

does not permit nor approve radar imaging surveys.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-13

3.2.2.6.5. Aeromagnetic Surveys

Aeromagnetic surveys are conducted to look for deep crustal structure, salt-related structure, and 

intra-sedimentary anomalies. The surveys are flown by fixed-wing aircraft flying at speeds of about 

135 kn (250 km/hr) (Reeves, 2005). Based on aeromagnetic datasets posted by Fugro Gravity and 

Magnetic Services (2012) for the northern Gulf of Mexico, most offshore aeromagnetic surveys are flown 

at altitudes between 61 and 152 m (200 and 500 ft) and collect 15,000-60,000 line km (9,320-37,282 line 

mi) of data. Line spacing varies depending on the objectives, but typical grids are 0.5 by 1.0 mi or 1.0 by

1.0 mi. A broad-scale survey may be flown at higher altitudes (e.g., 305 m [1,000 ft]) and use wider line 

spacing (e.g., 4 by 12 mi or 8 by 24 mi). The magnetic field is measured by either a proton precision or 

cesium vapor magnetometer mounted in a “stinger” projection from the tail of the aircraft (Reeves, 2005). 

On occasion, two magnetometers are used to measure not only the total magnetic field but also the 

vertical gradient of the field.

3.2.3. Proposed Action Scenario

3.2.3.1. Areas Considered for Oil and Gas Exploration

The G&G activities for oil and gas exploration could occur anywhere within the Mid- and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas, from the Federal/State boundary (3 nmi from shore) to the limits of this 

Agency’s jurisdiction at the EEZ (200 nmi from shore). The potential geographic scope is indicated by 

the applications for seismic surveying in the Atlantic that have been received and posted to BOEM’s 

website at http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx. The proposed 

survey areas collectively encompass most of the AOI, with considerable overlap. Although some G&G 

applications extend into State waters and beyond the EEZ (out to 350 nmi [648 km] from shore), 

jurisdiction beyond the EEZ is not currently within this Agency’s permitting authority. Surveys in State 

waters would be under the permitting authority of the COE through their NWP Program if it meets the 

terms, conditions, and any regional conditions of the NWP, and any additional coastal zone management

or Section 401 water quality requirements, as described in Chapter 1.6. All seismic surveys including 

those conducted in State waters or beyond the EEZ would be within the jurisdiction of NMFS with 

respect to authorization of incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA.

3.2.3.2. Projected Activity Levels

Projected activity levels over the time period analyzed in this Programmatic EIS are shown in 

Tables 3-3 and 3-4. To construct a scenario for oil and gas exploration, BOEM had to make some 

assumptions for how the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas would be administered as Federal lands, 

and if oil and gas exploration is to be allowed. The current applications for seismic surveying in the 

Atlantic were reviewed to separate those portions of proposed surveys that cover the Mid- and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas. Seismic operators were contacted to determine if they still wished to pursue 

seismic surveying if restricted to only the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. BOEM assumes that 

there will be no lease sale in these planning areas until at least 2018, according to the 2012-2017 

Proposed Five-Year Program, which was released for public comment in November 2011 (USDOI, 

BOEM, 2011b). 

Depending on authorizations required by other agencies, prelease seismic surveys could take place as 

soon as BOEM completes the NEPA evaluation. BOEM would expect to evaluate the site-specific 

attributes for G&G permit applications that include the environmental consultations required by law. 

Processing of permit applications is typically carried out within approximately 45-60 days. The 3D

estimates shown in Table 3-3 include ocean bottom cable and nodal surveys, vertical cable surveys, and 

4D nodal projects, and the WAZ estimates also include coil shooting (exclusive to WesternGeco).

Table 3-4 provides general activity levels for MT surveys; gravity, gravity gradient, and magnetic 

surveys; aeromagnetic surveys; COST wells; shallow test drilling; and bottom sampling, but with no 

breakdown by year or planning area. Activity estimates were not developed for satellite radar imaging as

BOEM does not permit or approve these surveys.
3-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.3. RENEWABLE ENERGY G&G SURVEYS FOR SITE ASSESSMENT AND 

CHARACTERIZATION

3.3.1. Background and Jurisdiction

The G&G surveys are expected to be conducted in support of renewable energy development in the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas within the 2012-2020 time period covered by this Programmatic 

EIS. Under the renewable energy program (30 CFR part 585), the need for G&G surveys in support of 

site characterization and foundation studies are part of a developer’s planning to secure a commercial 

competitive or non-competitive lease on the OCS for renewable energy facilities. Thus, the decision to 

offer an OCS lease is an actualizing step for G&G activities. The competitive lease process is set forth at 

30 CFR §§ 585.210 through 585.225, and the non-competitive process is set forth at 30 CFR §§ 585.230 

through 585.232, and was slightly modified by a recent rulemaking on May 16, 2011 (Federal Register, 

2011c). Most wind energy facilities on the Atlantic OCS will probably track the competitive process.

There are several OCS plans that are part of the renewable energy program, the approval of any of 

which could result in G&G activities (Table 3-2). A staged decision-making process takes place for a 

commercial development, such as a wind energy facility: (1) BOEM’s planning and analysis; (2) lease 

issuance; (3) approval of a Site Assessment Plan (SAP); and (4) approval of a Construction and 

Operations Plan (COP). A General Activities Plan (GAP) is processed to issue grants for rights-of way

on unleased OCS land or across land leased to a third party (Table 3-2). Under a GAP a similar staged 

approval process takes place. Typically a GAP would be used to approve installation of electrical cable in 

the sea bed or substations supporting an OCS wind energy facility.

A NEPA evaluation is part of the approval process for OCS plans under the renewable energy

program. A proposed action at a specific location, tool type, and intensity of G&G activity are subjected 

to evaluation, which may be an EA or an EIS. The consultations required under environmental law for 

protected species are part of the NEPA evaluation.

A commercial lease gives the lessee the exclusive right to subsequently seek BOEM approval for the 

development of the leasehold. A lease does not grant the lessee the right to construct any facilities; rather, 

the lease grants the right to use the leased area to actualize plans that must be approved by BOEM before 

the lessee can move on to the next stage of the process (30 CFR §§ 585.600 and 585.601). With the 

submission of a SAP the lessee proposes characterizing activities for the wind resource by constructing a 

meteorological tower or installing meteorological buoys on the leasehold (30 CFR §§ 585.605 through 

585.618). The lessee’s SAP must be approved by BOEM before it conducts these “site assessment” 

activities on the lease. BOEM may approve, approve with modification, or disapprove a lessee’s SAP 

(30 CFR § 585.613). A lessee may proceed directly to the fourth stage, COP submittal, if no site 

assessment activities are needed to support a COP submittal. In the current operating environment, this 

scenario is anticipated to occur in only a few exceptional cases. With the submission of a COP, which is 

a detailed plan for constructing and operating a wind energy facility on the lease, the lessee must also 

submit information characterizing the areal extent of the site and the sea bed foundation conditions that 

includes the detailed plan for constructing and operating a wind energy facility on the lease 

(30 CFR §§ 585.620 through 585.638). BOEM approval of a COP is a precondition to the construction of 

any wind energy facility on the OCS (30 CFR § 585.628). BOEM may approve, approve with 

modification, or disapprove a lessee’s COP (30 CFR § 585.628).

The regulations also require that a lessee provide the results of G&G surveys with its COP, including 

a shallow hazards survey (30 CFR § 585.626 (a)(1)), geological survey (30 CFR § 585.616(a)(2)), 

geotechnical survey (30 CFR § 585.626(a)(4)), and an archaeological resource survey 

(30 CFR § 585.626(a)(5)). Although BOEM does not issue permits or approvals for these site 

characterization activities, BOEM will not consider approving a lessee’s COP if the required survey 

information is not included. Chapter 1.7.5 provides guidance regarding actions required before BOEM 

will issue a permit. BOEM’s renewable energy program has developed guidance documents for various 

surveys, including G&G surveys, to support SAP, COP, and GAP submittal in the Atlantic 

(http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Regulatory-Information/Index.aspx#Notices_to_

Lessees,_Operators_and_Applicants). The guidance includes acceptable instrumentation, survey design 

parameters, and the report outputs that allow BOEM decisions to be made (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b). 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-15

Although offshore wind foundation designs are rapidly changing, the distance from shore for a wind 

facility is generally defined as the outward limit of its economic viability, currently about 46 km (25 nmi) 

from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water depth. Wind energy facilities are currently the only type of renewable 

energy facility contemplated in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. Specific locations of G&G

surveys for renewable energy sites are not known at this time. However, for this programmatic analysis, 

the general areas for renewable energy projects in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas from 2012 

through 2020 have been estimated in terms of numbers of OCS lease blocks offshore the States of 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

BOEM has published Requests for Interest and Calls for Information and Nominations for specific 

wind energy areas (WEAs) offshore Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. In January 2013, BOEM issued a 

commercial wind energy lease to Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC for approximately 96,430 ac 

(39,024 ha) offshore Delaware. On September 4, 2013, BOEM announced that Virginia Electric and 

Power Company (dba Dominion Virginia Power) was the provisional winner of a competitive lease 

auction for the Virginia lease area. 

In May 2011, North Carolina completed a screening exercise to yield candidate areas of OCS lease 

blocks meeting their criteria for wind facility development, and a Call for Information and Nominations 

for three areas offshore North Carolina was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2012 

(Federal Register, 2012b). BOEM has not published Requests for Interest for the states adjacent to the 

South Atlantic Planning Area (South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), but activity levels have been 

estimated for this analysis. Also, the scenario takes into account the Atlantic Wind Connection, a 

submarine electricity transmission cable proposed to be installed offshore the Atlantic Coast from New 

Jersey, offshore New York City, to Virginia, offshore Norfolk, to facilitate wind energy development. 

BOEM has received only one indication of interest for a marine hydrokinetic (MHK) project proposal in 

the Atlantic, but it is located in the Straits of Florida Planning Area, outside the scope of this 

Programmatic EIS. 

3.3.2. Types of Surveys

Two general types of G&G site characterization surveys are expected to be conducted in support of 

renewable energy development: HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys. The HRG surveys are 

conducted to obtain information about subseafloor conditions, shallow hazards, archaeological resources, 

and sensitive benthic habitats. Typical equipment used in HRG surveys includes single beam or 

multibeam depth sounders, magnetometers, side-scan sonars, and shallow and medium penetration 

subbottom profilers; however, airguns may also be used. Geotechnical surveys, which involve 

seafloor-disturbing activities such as cone penetrometer tests (CPTs), geologic coring, and grab sampling, 

are conducted to obtain information about surface and subsurface geological and geotechnical properties. 

Information from both survey types is taken into consideration during siting, design, construction, and 

operation of renewable energy facilities. The equipment suite used during G&G surveys for renewable 

energy (and marine minerals) is used widely in other applications such as research, undersea cable 

routing, etc.

Another activity conducted as part of site characterization is the deployment of bottom-founded 

monitoring buoys in a lease area. The buoys typically would include current meters and other equipment 

to monitor oceanographic conditions and marine life. The information collected can be used to evaluate 

the potential for sediment erosion, aid in the design of renewable energy facilities, and provide baseline 

environmental information for the lease area.

Under certain conditions, BOEM may encourage the use of additional instrumentations and methods 

such as divers, remote or manned submersibles, video cameras on ROVs, and additional geophysical 

survey lines. Once an operator submits a SAP, GAP, or COP, BOEM will review the geophysical survey 

and any other information available to determine the possible presence of sensitive benthic habitats or 

archaeological resources. These include areas where information suggests the presence of exposed hard 

bottoms of high, moderate, or low relief; hard bottoms covered by thin, ephemeral sand layers; seagrass 

patches; or algal beds. A survey that includes benthic grab samples and photodocumentation to delineate 

areas of sensitive benthic habitats may be recommended by BOEM where such features are known to 

occur or are suspected from previously conducted studies or surveys, or in areas where data are

inadequate. Biological surveys are not part of the analysis in this Programmatic EIS. 
3-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The renewable energy scenario includes the possibility that a deep penetration (2D or 3D) seismic

survey would be conducted to evaluate formation suitability for carbon sequestration. However, given the 

much greater number and extent of seismic surveys included in the oil and gas scenario, a single seismic 

survey for carbon sequestration is not analyzed separately.

3.3.2.1. High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys

Lessees must submit the results of site characterization surveys with their SAP (30 CFR §§ 585.610 

and 585.611) and COP (30 CFR §§ 585.626 and 585.627). The purpose of the HRG survey would be to 

acquire geophysical shallow hazards data and information pertaining to the presence or absence of 

archaeological resources, and to conduct bathymetric charting. The HRG data are collected by lessees to 

provide information on subseafloor conditions, shallow hazards, archaeological resources, and sensitive 

benthic habitats in a lease area and along transmission cable corridors. The scope of investigation should 

be sufficient to reliably cover any portion of the site that would be affected by the renewable energy

installation including the maximum area of potential effect encompassing all seafloor/bottom-disturbing 

activities. The maximum area includes, but is not limited to, the footprint of all 

seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities (including the areas in which installation vessels, barge anchorages, 

and/or appurtenances may be placed) associated with construction, installation, inspection, maintenance, 

or removal of structures and/or transmission cables.

Equipment typically used in HRG surveys for renewable energy includes single beam or multibeam 

depth sounders, magnetometers, side-scan sonars, and shallow or medium penetration subbottom 

profilers. BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would typically be used for renewable energy site 

characterization activities, but small airguns may be used at times. Typical equipment is summarized 

below; see Chapter 3.5 for additional information, including sound source levels.

• Depth Sounders: The depth sounder system should record with a sweep appropriate 

to the range of water depths expected in the survey area. BOEM encourages use of a 

multibeam bathymetry system, particularly in areas characterized by complex 

topography or fragile habitats.

• Magnetometers: Magnetometer survey techniques should be capable of detecting 

and aiding the identification of ferrous, ferric, or other objects having a distinct 

magnetic signature. The magnetometer sensor should be towed as near as possible to 

the seafloor but should not exceed an altitude of greater than 6 m (20 ft) above the 

seafloor. The sensor should be towed in a manner that minimizes interference from 

the vessel hull and other survey instruments. The magnetometer sensitivity should be

1 gamma or less, and the background noise level should not exceed a total of 

3 gammas peak to peak.

• Side-Scan Sonars: Recording should be of optimal quality (good resolution, 

minimal distortion) resulting in displays automatically corrected for slant range, layback, and vessel speed. The operator should use a digital dual-frequency side-scan 

sonar system with preferred frequencies of 445 and 900 kHz and no less than 100 and 

500 kHz to record continuous planimetric images of the seafloor. The recorded data 

should be used to construct a mosaic to provide a true plan view that provides 

100 percent coverage of the area of potential effect. The side-scan sonar sensor 

should be towed at a distance above the seafloor that is 10-20 percent of the range of 

the instrument.

• Shallow and Medium Penetration Subbottom Profilers: A high-resolution chirp 

subbottom profiler is typically used to delineate near-surface geologic strata and 

features. BOEM recommends that the subbottom profiler system be capable of 

achieving a vertical bed separation resolution of at least 0.3 m (1 ft) in the uppermost 

15 m (49 ft) below the seafloor. The medium-penetration boomer profiler system 

must be capable of penetrating greater than 10 m (33 ft) beyond any potential 

foundation depth, and the vertical resolution must be less than 6 m (20 ft). 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-17

The HRG surveys are conducted from specialized survey vessels fitted with equipment for deploying 

and handling geophysical systems. In nearshore waters, the surveys would be conducted by a single, 

small (<23-30 m [75-98 ft]) vessel moving at <5 kn (9.3 km/hr). Typically, a survey would be completed 

in 3-5 days, and depending on the location, the vessel may return to its shore base daily. Sites in deeper 

water may require larger vessels that operate 24 hr per day and can remain at sea for weeks. Survey 

vessels follow precise, pre-plotted lines so that the desired coverage of the seafloor is achieved. An 

integrated navigational system keeps track of the position and depth of the towed survey equipment.

BOEM recommends that the geophysical survey grid(s) for project structures and surrounding area 

for bathymetric charting, shallow hazards assessments, and archaeological resources assessments be 

oriented with respect to bathymetry, shallow geologic structure, and renewable energy structure locations 

whenever possible. The grid pattern for each survey should cover the maximum area of potential effect 

for all anticipated physical disturbances. Specific grid requirements are as follows:

• line spacing for all geophysical data for shallow hazards assessments (on side-scan 

sonar/all subbottom profilers) should not exceed 150 m (492 ft) throughout the area; 

• line spacing for all geophysical data for archaeological resources assessments (on

magnetometer, side-scan sonar, chirp subbottom profiler) should not exceed 30 m 

(98 ft) throughout the area. BOEM may require higher resolution surveys where 

necessary to ensure that site-specific actions comply with the NHPA; 

• line spacing for bathymetric charting using multibeam technique or side-scan sonar 

mosaic construction should be suitable for the water depths encountered and provide 

both full coverage of the seabed plus suitable overlap and resolution of small discrete 

targets of 0.5-1.0 m (1.5-3 ft) in diameter; and

• all track lines should run generally parallel to each other. Tie-lines running 

perpendicular to the track lines should not exceed a line spacing of 150 m (492 ft) 

throughout the survey area.

In addition, the geophysical survey grid for proposed transmission cable route(s) should include a 

minimum 300-m (984-ft) wide corridor centered on the transmission cable location(s). Line spacing 

should be identical to that noted above.

3.3.2.2. Geotechnical Surveys

Geotechnical surveys are conducted to obtain information about surface and subsurface geological 

and geotechnical properties. This information is used to aid in siting, design, construction, and operation 

of renewable energy facilities. Geotechnical surveys involve seafloor-disturbing activities such as CPTs, 

geologic coring, and grab sampling. Sediment sampling and testing locations for geotechnical surveys are 

guided by the geophysical data and maps generated during HRG surveys.

The principal purposes of geotechnical surveys are to (1) assess the suitability of shallow foundation 

soils to support renewable energy structure(s) or associated transmission cable(s) under extreme 

operational and environmental conditions that might be encountered; and (2) document soil characteristics 

necessary for design and installation of all structures and transmission cables. The results reveal the 

stratigraphic and geoengineering properties of the sediment that may affect the foundations or anchoring 

systems for the project. Specific uses of geotechnical data are to

• analyze in situ and laboratory soil test data to estimate foundation soil response to 

maximum anticipated static and dynamic loads;

• determine embedment depth and predict susceptibility of the foundation to 

liquefaction and scour phenomena;

• characterize liquefaction potential, specifically in the context of regional seismicity;

• evaluate the potential for seafloor erosion and scour in the context of empirically 

derived current velocity data for the project area; and

• integrate the results of the geotechnical and shallow hazards investigations to provide 

a comprehensive analysis of foundation stability for the site. 
3-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

BOEM recommends that the results of in situ testing, boring, and/or sampling be analyzed at each 

foundation location and at every kilometer of the transmission cable route to shore to examine all 

important sediment and rock strata to determine its strength classification, deformation properties, and 

dynamic characteristics. Sampling should include a minimum of one “deep” geologic coring (with soil 

sampling and testing) at each edge of the project area and within the project area as needed to determine 

the vertical and lateral variation in seabed conditions and to provide the relevant geotechnical data 

required for design. To be considered a “geologic coring,” the core depth should be at least 10 m (33 ft) 

deeper than the design penetration of the foundation piles. For areas with highly variable subsea soil 

conditions, it may be appropriate to obtain a much higher number of deep borings than the minimum 

described in 30 CFR § 585.626(a)(4)(iii), and it may be necessary to obtain one at each turbine foundation 

location to adequately characterize the stratigraphic and geoengineering properties for each foundation 

design.

Geotechnical surveys for renewable energy sites are expected to be conducted from ships 

approximately 60 m (197 ft) in length. The duration of a typical survey would be 3 days or less. The 

spatial scale of sampling and testing activities would range from a minimum of 1/16 of a lease block 

(approximately 260 ha or 640 ac) to multiple lease blocks and is assumed to include cable route(s) to 

shore. The area of seabed disturbed by individual sampling events (e.g., collection of a core or grab 

sample) is estimated to range from 1 to 10 square meters (m2

) (11 to 108 square feet [ft2]). Some 

operational platforms require anchoring for brief periods using small anchors; however, approximately 

50 percent of deployments for this sampling work could involve a boat having dynamic positioning 

capability. Consequently, not all geological sampling necessarily includes bottom disturbance by 

anchoring. Jack-up barges and spudded work barges are seldom used.

3.3.2.2.1. Cone Penetrometer Tests

The CPT is a widely used in situ test for marine engineering applications (Fugro, 2003; 

ISSMGE, 2005). It is used to obtain information on soil type and stratification as well as shear strength in 

clays and relative density and friction angles in sand. The CPT provides an empirical assessment of 

seabed soils based on the resistance of the soil to a cone-tipped probe, or penetrometer, as it is pushed into 

the seabed at a constant rate of penetration (about 2 cm/s [0.8 in/s]). Standard cones have a tip angle of 

60° and a cross-sectional area between 5 and 20 square centimeters [cm2

] (0.8 and 3 square inches [in2]). 

Electrical strain gauges within the cone assembly measure the resistance on the cone tip and friction on a 

sleeve behind the tip. In a piezocone penetration test (PCPT), an additional parameter, soil pore water 

pressure, is measured via a porous element in the cone face or at the shoulder between cone tip and 

friction sleeve. Data are transmitted in realtime to the surface support vessel for recording and analysis.

3.3.2.2.2. Geologic Coring

During geotechnical surveys for renewable energy facilities, core samples are collected to 

characterize the geotechnical properties of surface and subsurface sediments. BOEM requires that this 

sampling include a minimum of one “deep” geologic coring (with soil sampling and testing) at each edge 

of a project area and within a project area as needed to determine the vertical and lateral variation in 

seabed conditions and to provide the relevant geotechnical data required for design of renewable energy 

facilities. To be considered a geologic coring, the core depth should be at least 10 m (33 ft) deeper than 

the design penetration of the foundation piles. Geologic cores are obtained by standard rotary coring. 

Rotary corers are designed as double or triple tube devices where the innermost tube acts as a core liner, 

the middle tube, if present, acts as a holder, and the rotating outer tube carries the hollow drill bit. As the 

bit cuts down through the soils and rock, the core created passes into the liner in a relatively undisturbed 

state (Fugro, 2003; ISSMGE, 2005). The cores obtained by this method vary in diameter from 3 to 20 cm

(1 to 8 in) and can penetrate several hundred meters beneath the seafloor.

Other methods may be used during geotechnical surveys, including vibracorers, gravity corers, piston 

corers, box corers, and jet probes (Fugro, 2003; ISSMGE, 2005). These methods are not specifically 

analyzed here, but the extent of seafloor disturbance would be similar to that for geologic coring.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-19

3.3.2.2.3. Grab Sampling

Grab samplers are one of the most common methods of retrieving sediment samples from the seabed. 

A grab sampler is a device that collects a sample of the topmost layers of the seabed and benthic biota by 

bringing two steel clamshells together and cutting a bite from the soil. The grab sampler consists of two 

steel clamshells on a single or double pivot. The shells are brought together either by a powerful spring 

or powered hydraulic rams operated from the support vessel. The grab is lowered to the seabed and 

activated, either automatically or by remote control. The shells swivel together in a cutting action and by 

so doing remove a section of seabed. The sample is recovered to the ship for examination. Geotechnical 

investigations normally require large samples and favor the bigger hydraulic clamshell grab. These 

systems can retrieve samples of 0.35 m3 (12.4 ft3

) or 700 kg (1,543 lb). A typical hydraulic grab sampler 

will weigh about half a tonne and can operate in water depths down to 200 m (656 ft). Typical sampling 

rates are between three and four grabs per hour.

3.3.2.3. Bottom-Founded Monitoring Buoy Deployments

While a meteorological tower has been the traditional device for characterizing wind conditions, 

several companies have expressed interest in installing meteorological buoys instead (USDOI, 

BOEMRE, 2011a). This Programmatic EIS assumes that lessees would choose to install buoys instead of 

meteorological towers. These meteorological buoys would be anchored at fixed locations and regularly 

collect observations from many different atmospheric and oceanographic sensors. The scenario does not 

preclude the use of meteorological towers. Rather, it recognizes that experience to date has shown that 

operators facing the costs of installing, operating, and decommissioning a meteorological tower have 

selected against this method for buoys that have near-equivalent capability for obtaining the same data as 

towers.

A meteorological buoy can vary in height, hull type, and anchoring method. NOAA has successfully 

used discus-shaped and boat-shaped hull buoys for weather data collection for many years; these are the 

buoy types that would most likely be adapted for offshore wind data collection. A large discus buoy has a 

circular hull that ranges between 10 and 12 m (33 and 39 ft) in diameter and is designed for many years of 

service (USDOC, National Data Buoy Center [NDBC], 2011). The boat-shaped hull buoy (known as the 

“NOMAD”) is an aluminum-hulled, boat-shaped buoy that provides long-term survivability in severe seas 

(USDOC, NDBC, 2011). The largest meteorological buoys anticipated in this scenario would be similar 

to one proposed offshore New Jersey by Garden State Offshore Energy, which was a 30-m (100-ft) long 

spar-type buoy just over 2 m (6 ft) in diameter (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). 

See Chapter 3.5 for the estimated extent of seafloor disturbance associated with bottom-founded 

monitoring buoys.

3.3.3. Proposed Action Scenario

To estimate the survey activity that could reasonably result from renewable energy lease issuance and 

approval of site assessment activities, BOEM’s Office of Renewable Energy Programs (OREP) developed 

the following activity scenario based on applications and other proposals for commercial wind facilities 

and data collection activities on the Atlantic OCS. Offshore wind facilities are currently the only type of 

renewable energy facility contemplated in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. BOEM has only 

received one expression of interest for an MHK project proposal in the Atlantic, but this demonstration 

scale project is located in the Straits of Florida Planning Area, outside the scope of this Programmatic 

EIS. 

3.3.3.1. Areas Considered for Renewable Energy Projects

The general area proposed for site assessment activities for renewable energy projects in the Mid- and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas between 2012 and 2020 would be a portion of the OCS offshore Delaware, 

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Estimated areal extent of the 

OCS blocks where renewable energy activities may occur offshore each state are summarized in 

Table 3-5. The distance from shore for a wind facility is generally defined at the outward limit of its 

economic viability, currently about 25 nmi (46.3 km) from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water depth. 
3-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.3.3.1.1. Mid-Atlantic Planning Area

In the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area, BOEM published Requests for Interest for WEAs offshore 

Delaware (Federal Register, 2010d), Maryland (Federal Register, 2010e), and Virginia 

(Federal Register, 2011d). In January 2012, BOEM issued a final EA for these areas that included 

changes to the extent of the Maryland and Virginia WEAs (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). Following issuance 

of the final EA, BOEM published a Call for Information and Nominations for both Virginia and North 

Carolina (Federal Register, 2012a, b, e). The revised WEAs are the ones included in this Programmatic 

EIS. In September 2013, BOEM held a competitive auction for the Virginia lease area and announced the 

provisional winner of that auction as Dominion Power.

The proposed Delaware WEA rests between the incoming and outgoing shipping routes for Delaware 

Bay and is made up of 11 whole OCS blocks and 16 partial blocks. The closest point to shore is 18.5 km 

(10 nmi) due east from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The area is approximately 122 nmi

2 (103,323 ac or 

41,813 ha).

The Maryland WEA is defined as 9 whole OCS blocks and 11 partial blocks. The western and 

eastern boundaries of the WEA are located approximately 18.5 and 50 km (10 and 27 nmi), respectively,

from Ocean City, Maryland. The area is approximately 94 nmi

2 (79,706 ac or 32,256 ha).

The Virginia WEA consists of 19 whole OCS blocks and 1 partial block. The western and eastern 

boundaries of the area are approximately 33.4 and 68.5 km (18 and 37 nmi), respectively, from Virginia 

Beach, Virginia. The area is approximately 133 nmi

2

 (112,799 ac or 45,648 ha) (Federal Register, 

2012a). 

In May 2011, North Carolina completed a screening exercise to yield a candidate area of 500 OCS

lease blocks meeting their criteria for wind facility development (Thrive in North Carolina, 2011). The

screening exercise was to determine potential environmental suitability, and the area is not proposed for 

wind development at this time. Those 500 OCS lease blocks were further evaluated, which resulted in 

identifying an area consisting of 354 OCS blocks for further assessment within the period covered by this 

Programmatic EIS. Based on this, the area would be approximately 2,377 nmi2 (2,014,459 ac or 

815,226 ha). The first blocks identified were included in a Call for Information and Nomination that 

identified three Call Areas comprising 195 whole OCS blocks and 60 partial blocks in total. The area is 

approximately 1,441 nmi2

 (1,220,735 ac or 494,016 ha) (Federal Register, 2012b). 

In January 2013, BOEM issued a commercial wind energy lease to Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC 

for approximately 96,430 ac (39,024 ha) offshore Delaware. The lease comprises 11 whole lease blocks 

and 95 subblocks (Federal Register, 2013a). 

3.3.3.1.2. South Atlantic Planning Area

For the states adjacent to the South Atlantic Planning Area (South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), 

BOEM has not published Requests for Interest, and there is no other specific information to estimate the 

activity level in these areas. For this analysis, the activity level has been estimated at 30 lease blocks 

offshore each of these states. BOEM has received one plan for an MHK project proposal in the Atlantic

for a demonstration scale project, but it is located in the Straits of Florida Planning Area, outside the 

scope of this Programmatic EIS. 

3.3.3.1.3. Atlantic Wind Connection Transmission Cable

Atlantic Grid Holdings LLC has proposed to develop a high-voltage direct current transmission cable 

offshore the Atlantic Coast running from northern New Jersey to Virginia in five phases (Atlantic Wind 

Connection, 2011a,b). The company has requested a right-of-way that is approximately 1,320 km 

(820 mi) in length, with as many as a dozen offshore platforms (substations). Under BOEM’s 

regulations, a right-of-way is 61 m (200 ft) in width, though the developer may elect to perform surveys 

on a somewhat wider area to facilitate rerouting should obstructions in the right-of-way be discovered. 

About 90 percent of the right-of-way is in Federal waters. Although some of the right-of-way is outside 

the AOI, for the analysis in this Programmatic EIS the entire length is included.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-21

3.3.3.2. Projected Activity Levels

Table 3-6 summarizes the projected activity levels for G&G activities associated with renewable 

energy development from 2012 through 2020. 

To estimate HRG activity levels, BOEM assumed that geophysical surveys for shallow hazards and 

archaeological resources would be conducted at the same time using the finer line spacing required for 

archaeological resource assessment (30 m [98 ft]). Tie-lines would be run perpendicular to the track lines

at a line spacing of 150 m (492 ft), which would result in 925 km (575 mi [500 nmi]) of HRG surveys per 

OCS block. It would take approximately 150 hr to survey one OCS block. In addition, a 16-km (10 mi) 

cable route to shore was assumed for each state, with a 300-m (984-ft) wide survey corridor requiring 

about 8 km (5 mi) or 1 hr of surveys per mile of cable. This assumption (1 hr per mile of cable) is also 

used for the Atlantic Wind Connection submarine transmission cable. In order to survey an entire 

renewable energy area and potential cable route, HRG surveys would have to be conducted by multiple 

vessels and/or over multiple years and potential cable routes.

The number of bottom sampling/testing locations for geotechnical surveys was estimated by 

assuming that a sample would be collected at every potential turbine location. Spacing between wind 

turbines is typically determined on a case-by-case basis and is based on a number of project-specific 

factors to minimize wake effect, including turbine size and rotor diameter. Offshore Denmark, a spacing 

of seven rotor diameters between units has been used. In the U.S., the Cape Wind project proposed a 

spacing of 6 by 9 rotor diameters. In some land-based settings, turbines are separated by as much as 

10 rotor diameters from each other. Based on this range in spacing for a 3.6-megawatt (MW) (110-m 

rotor diameter) turbine and a 5-MW (130-m rotor diameter) turbine, it would be possible to place 

14-45 turbines in one OCS block. The sampling numbers in Table 3-6 are based on the assumption that a 

bottom sample would be collected at every potential turbine location in a WEA, at a density of 

14-45 turbines per block. In addition, the Atlantic Wind Connection has proposed up to 12 transmission 

substations along the transmission line, and it is estimated that one or two bottom samples would be 

collected at each substation.

3.4. MARINE MINERALS G&G SURVEYS

The suite of survey and tool types typically deployed for the renewable energy and marine minerals

programs are very similar.

3.4.1. Background and Jurisdiction

The marine minerals program is responsible for managing the exploration for and use of marine 

minerals, in particular sand and gravel, on the OCS. The OCS sand resources are frequently identified for 

and used in shore protection, coastal and wetlands restoration, and other federally authorized construction 

projects. BOEM has historically implemented the combined authorities for sand and gravel exploration 

and use through four principal functions:

• authorizing G&G prospecting for OCS sand resources;

• undertaking environmental evaluation and studies in support of G&G authorizations 

and leasing OCS sand resources;

• preparing non-competitive leases and MOAs authorizing use of OCS sand resources 

in beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects; and

• managing and coordinating cooperative agreements, task forces, and working groups 

with State and Federal partners in management of OCS sand resources.

The G&G surveys may occur during three distinct phases of a project, which, in order of occurrence, 

could include the following: (1) initial sand resource exploration; (2) pre-authorization or pre-leasing 

environmental review; and (3) borrow area monitoring before and after dredging and construction.

The typical project requiring use of OCS sand first involves resource identification. In this phase, 

reconnaissance G&G surveys are performed to map and characterize OCS sand resources and/or identify 

any sensitive environmental resources that could be affected by surveys. The G&G surveys may also be 

performed in support of regional or strategic sediment management planning without a particular end use 
3-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

or user in mind. The G&G surveys may be performed by other Federal agencies, State or local 

governments, contractors working on the behalf of a government, and/or academia. As a practical and 

recent example, but not included in the AOI, following Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy in October 2012 

large areas of shore along New Jersey and New York’s Long Island experienced beach erosion and 

shoreline degradation. President Obama set up a Federal Task Force by EO 13632 on December 14, 2012 

(Federal Register, 2012c). As a participant, the USDOI fully expects that as plans for rebuilding and 

coastal restoration proceed, BOEM will be assisting in efforts to identify OCS sand resources, and 

subsequent borrow sites, from where suitable sand could be obtained for rebuilding and shoreline 

restorations the Task Force identifies.

These survey activities for OCS marine minerals fall under two types, prospecting and scientific 

research. Under Section 11 of the OCSLA, BOEM may authorize G&G prospecting for non-energy 

marine minerals, except in the case that another Federal agency is performing the survey on the OCS. 

Before authorizing any proposed prospecting, BOEM undertakes the necessary environmental review, 

including preparation of a NEPA document. Scientific research only requires notification and is not 

authorized by BOEM.

After OCS sand resources are identified and smaller-scale borrow area(s) are proposed, under 

Section 8(k) of the OCSLA, BOEM may authorize use of those minerals through a negotiated 

non-competitive leasing process for qualified projects. Qualified projects include shore protection, beach 

or coastal restoration, or a federally authorized construction project undertaken by a Federal agency, 

State, or local government.

A separate process and regulatory framework (30 CFR parts 581-582) is in place for competitive 

leasing of OCS non-energy minerals, a process similar to oil and gas leasing where interested parties bid 

on specific OCS blocks proposed for leasing. However, BOEM has never conducted a competitive 

leasing process for sand or gravel and does not expect to do so within the period 2012-2020. 

In advance of entering into a negotiated agreement for the non-competitive use of OCS sand 

resources, BOEM undertakes a detailed environmental and technical review of the proposed project. 

BOEM may prepare its own NEPA document (Table 3-2), collaborate with another lead Federal agency, 

or have a contractor prepare the NEPA document. As with all NEPA evaluations, any coordination or 

consultations required by environmental law are also carried out. To provide relevant information for the 

environmental review, additional G&G surveys are typically conducted by the applicant in the proposed 

borrow area to identify sensitive environmental and cultural resources and avoid to the extent possible 

adverse effects to those resources during dredging through appropriate mitigation. Geophysical surveys 

are most frequently used to identify archaeological/cultural resources and/or map benthic and hard bottom

habitat at or near the proposed borrow area. BOEM cannot currently authorize these surveys under its 

authority, unless the surveys are being used to further delineate the mineral resource.

Finally, additional geophysical surveys may be conducted at the borrow area prior to and at regular 

intervals after dredging. These surveys are performed as conditions of BOEM’s authorization. Previous 

environmental review would have considered, analyzed, and established the need for such monitoring

surveys. Typical surveys include pre- and post-construction bathymetric surveys in the borrow area and 

are used to document bottom changes, determine volumes used, and validate environmental analyses. 

The G&G surveys for the marine minerals program have historically occurred as follows: (1) under 

cooperative agreements where State or academic researchers (funded by BOEM) regionally identified and 

assessed potential offshore sand resources (USDOI, MMS, 1999, 2000); and (2) under prospecting 

authorizations and/or in support of non-competitive leasing in advance of and following dredging 

operations. Until 2009, this Agency managed cooperative agreements with six coastal states along the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Florida (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011b). Currently, BOEM has only one such agreement in the Atlantic, 

with Florida, but is working with multiple other states within the AOI to execute new cooperative 

agreements. Between 1995 and 2011, this Agency issued more than 20 negotiated agreements along the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas authorizing use of OCS sand resources from borrow areas 

offshore of Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida in recreational beach, storm and hurricane

damage protection, and infrastructure protection projects (USDOI, BOEM, 2011a). Much of the OCS 

sand used in these projects was previously identified through the cooperative agreement program that has 

since largely been discontinued because of budget constraints.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-23

The G&G activities in support of marine minerals uses are expected to occur in both Federal and 

State waters of the AOI during the time period from 2012 through 2020. It should be noted that 

prospecting for and use of sand or gravel in State waters is under jurisdiction of the COE, and G&G 

surveys are permitted under their NWP Program if it meets the terms, conditions, and any regional 

conditions of the NWP, and any additional coastal zone management or Section 401 water quality

requirements. Exact G&G survey locations and durations are not known at this time. However, sand 

source areas (borrow areas) are typically located in water depths between 10 and 30 m (33 and 98 ft). 

The cost for transporting sand to shore for beach nourishment or coastal restoration is relatively 

expensive, so coastal planners first use resources in areas closest to shore. Much of the G&G survey 

activity is expected to occur within existing borrow sites offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 

states (see Chapter 4.2.12.1.3 for locations).

3.4.2. Types of Surveys

Two general types of G&G surveys are expected to be conducted in support of marine minerals uses: 

non-airgun HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys. The non-airgun HRG surveys are conducted to 

obtain information about subseafloor conditions, shallow hazards, archaeological resources, and sensitive 

benthic habitats. Typical equipment used in non-airgun HRG surveys includes single beam, 

interferometric swath, or multibeam depth sounders, magnetometers, side-scan sonars, and shallow or 

medium penetration subbottom profilers. Geotechnical surveys involve seafloor-disturbing activities such 

as vibracoring, geologic coring, and grab sampling, which are conducted to evaluate the quality of 

mineral resources for their intended use.

3.4.2.1. High Resolution Geophysical Surveys

3.4.2.1.1. Prospecting and Prelease Geophysical Surveys

The non-airgun HRG surveys are undertaken to identify OCS sand resources and any environmental 

resources, cultural resources, and shallow hazards that may exist in potential borrow areas. These surveys 

are comparable to those undertaken for renewable energy site characterization. Typical survey 

deployments may involve single beam, interferometric swath, or multibeam depth sounders; side-scan 

sonar; a magnetometer; and subbottom profilers (chirp, sparker, or boomer). Rarely, marine resistivity 

systems (involving a towed current emitter and an array of receivers) may also be deployed. Geophysical 

survey equipment is typically deployed from a single relatively small (<20-30 m [65-98 ft]) vessel 

moving at <5 kn (9.3 km/hr). Since survey areas over prospective borrow sites (3-10 km2 [300-1,000 ha 

or 741-2,471 ac]) or reconnaissance areas (on the order of 1-3 OCS blocks) are small in comparison to 

areas for oil and gas and renewable energy site characterization, these surveys are generally completed in 

1-5 operational days.

Prospecting non-airgun HRG surveys are reconnaissance in nature and generally performed over 

larger areas than actual borrow areas to identify sand bodies and characterize the shallow geological 

framework and surficial geology of potential sand resources. These initial surveys are used to ascertain if 

sand or gravel resources are of a certain quality (sediment type) and quantity to warrant further 

exploration and may be conducted at line spacing between 150 and 600 m (492 and 1,969 ft). During the 

reconnaissance phase, limited geotechnical sampling often occurs along seismic lines and is used to 

validate geophysical data interpretations.

In comparison, prelease (or design-level) non-airgun HRG surveys are often performed once a 

relatively smaller area (or areas) is (are) identified as promising borrow area target(s). Prelease/design 

non-airgun HRG surveys provide information on seafloor/subseafloor conditions, shallow hazards, 

archaeological resources, and sensitive benthic habitats. These data may be used to prepare a dredging

plan to efficiently and economically obtain the needed sand volumes while minimizing adverse 

environmental impacts. Depending on the quality of the initial reconnaissance geophysical data, these 

data may also be used to refine the borrow area and/or determine horizontal and vertical continuity of 

sedimentary units (in which case, the survey may be subject to BOEM authorization). These surveys may 

be conducted at 15-50 m (49-164 ft) line spacing.
3-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.4.2.1.2. On-Lease Geophysical Surveys

On-lease non-airgun HRG surveys are typically performed at the borrow area, or a sub-area of the 

borrow area, prior to and at specified intervals after dredging. A typical area for these surveys would be 

1 square mile (mi2

) (259 ha or 640 ac). These surveys are used by BOEM to monitor the location and 

volumes of sand dredging, ensure observance of exclusion zones, and monitor the morphologic evolution 

of sand bodies and borrow pits. The most frequent geophysical surveys are bathymetric surveys; if 

sensitive cultural or benthic resources are in the immediate vicinity of dredging and cannot be avoided, 

side-scan sonar may also be deployed. Since survey areas are relatively small, on-lease geophysical 

surveys are generally completed in 1-2 days.

3.4.2.2. Geotechnical Surveys

Geological sampling, most commonly by means of vibracoring, geologic (rotary) coring, and/or grab 

sampling, is carried out to characterize the volume (footprint and thickness) and quality of a prospective 

sand body or lens. Geotechnical sampling is most frequently done in connection with reconnaissance 

geophysical surveying. Of these techniques, vibracoring is the most likely technique used to define the 

thickness and lateral extent of OCS sand bodies. Other sampling methods such as piston or box coring 

and jet probes are also used as part of geotechnical surveys but are not specifically analyzed here; the 

extent of seafloor disturbance would be similar to that of the other sediment sampling methods.

Vibracoring generally uses a 7-cm (2.8-in) diameter core barrel mounted on a platform or tripod 

support assembly and can penetrate sediments in the upper 15 m (50 ft). The typical vibracore survey 

will obtain 15-25 cores, approximately 6 m (20 ft) deep in a 1 mi2 (640-ac or 259-ha) area. To penetrate 

dense sands and gravels, or to reach deeper into stiff clays, the corer’s barrel is vibrated, facilitating its 

penetration into the soil (Fugro, 2003; ISSMGE, 2005).

Geologic coring (standard rotary coring) varies in diameter from 3 to 20 cm (1.2 to 7.9 in) and can 

penetrate several hundred meters beneath the seafloor. Because of the significantly greater expense, only 

1-2 geologic cores would typically be drilled in a 1-mi2 (640-ac or 259-ha) area. Methods have been 

described previously in Chapter 3.3.2.2. 

Grab sampling penetrates from a few inches to a few feet below the seafloor and typically involves 

30-40 grabs in the area of interest. Methods have been described previously in Chapter 3.3.2.2. 

Nearly all geotechnical sampling occurs from either relatively small- to medium-sized stationed 

vessels approximately 20 m (65 ft) in length or from work barges towed into place. The duration of a 

typical survey would be 3 days or less. The area of seabed disturbed by individual sampling events 

(e.g., collection of a core or grab sample) is estimated to range between 1 and 10 m2 (11 and 108 ft2

). 

Some operational platforms require anchoring for brief periods with small anchors; however, 

approximately 50 percent of deployments for this sampling work could involve a boat having dynamic 

positioning capability. Consequently, not all geological sampling necessarily includes bottom disturbance 

by anchoring. Jack-up barges and spudded work barges are seldom used.

3.4.3. Proposed Action Scenario

3.4.3.1. Areas Considered for Marine Minerals Projects

The general area where prospecting, prelease site assessment, and on-lease G&G surveys in the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas will likely occur between 2012 and 2020 is in water depths 

between 10 and 30 m (33 and 98 ft) offshore Delaware south to Florida. Georgia is excluded because the 

State has never had an agreement with BOEM for joint study of OCS marine minerals resources and has 

never requested a non-competitive lease to use them onshore. Current technology in the U.S. hopper and 

cutterhead dredging fleet effectively limits dredging to less than 30-m (98-ft) water depths. Moreover, 

the cost for transporting sand located in offshore sand shoals and banks to shore is relatively expensive, 

ensuring coastal planners first use resources in areas closest to shore.

Many OCS usable sand bodies are already known and have been surveyed and/or used previously. 

(See Chapter 4.2.12.1.3 for a discussion of existing borrow sites.) When existing sites are reused in the 

future, additional G&G surveying usually is not required, but may be conducted, on a case-by-case basis 

if needed, to detect archaeological resources and other bottom obstructions and to sample the area to see if 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-25

it can provide the quantity and quality of sand required. Some projects are likely to draw from existing 

borrow sites over and over again, whereas others may use new areas yet to be drawn from. For this 

analysis, specific G&G survey locations are not identified. However, based on past usage, a few existing 

borrow sites such as Sandbridge Shoal offshore Virginia and the Canaveral Shoals and Jacksonville 

borrow sites offshore Florida are likely to be reused, perhaps accounting for 40-50 percent of future 

projects.

3.4.3.2. Projected Activity Levels

The marine minerals program has identified beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects that 

are most likely to require use of OCS sand resources over the next 10 years. Estimated survey levels are 

summarized in Table 3-7 (for HRG surveys) and Table 3-8 (for geotechnical surveys). The proposed

activity scenario is based on an examination of past trends in OCS G&G and leasing activity and 

anticipated OCS leasing requests, as well as projections of other possible uses as existing borrow areas 

are nearing depletion. Note that most of G&G prospecting and prelease/design surveys have already been 

completed for most projects. 

3.4.3.2.1. High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys 

The HRG scenario (Table 3-7) is based on the following assumptions for three different survey types:

1. Prospecting HRG survey – 200-m (656-ft) line spacing. Assuming an average 

borrow area of 1 mi2 (640 ac or 259 ha), the corresponding HRG prospecting survey 

would be conservatively estimated at 29 km (18 mi) of line.

2. Prelease/design HRG survey – 30-m (98-ft) line spacing. Assuming the same 

average borrow area, the corresponding HRG prelease survey would be 

conservatively estimated at 177 km (110 mi) of line.

3. On-lease HRG survey – 50-m (164-ft) line spacing. Assuming the same average 

borrow area, the corresponding HRG on-lease survey would be conservatively 

estimated at 106 km (66 mi) of line.

The number and size of borrow areas across known sand resources vary substantially. In some cases, 

the presence of a sand resource is already known, but specific borrow areas have yet to be identified that 

have the specific grain-size characteristics or other geoengineering attributes for a specific project. 

Nourishment volumes and frequency are comparatively well-defined for the relevant time frame. Given a 

projected fill volume and assuming a typical cut depth (2 m [6.6 ft] in this case), the length of HRG

survey lines can be estimated for each project. For each HRG survey, a lower bound is estimated from 

the best available volume projections. Projections were verified by comparing historical prospecting, 

prelease, and postlease survey kilometers of line with what would have been estimated strictly from 

anticipated volumes. An upper bound is estimated by applying a multiplier to the lower bound. It was 

determined that a multiplier of up to 25 times for prospecting surveys and 5 times for prelease and 

postlease surveys adequately represented the upper bound. 

The HRG scenario for the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas projected through 2020 includes 

approximately 100-3,200 km (62-1,988 mi) of prospecting surveys, 850-4,300 km (528-2,672 mi) of 

prelease/design surveys, and 900-4,600 km (559-2,858 mi) of on-lease surveys. Across all geophysical 

survey activities, the maximum activity level is estimated at 12,100 km (7,519 mi); this is the equivalent 

of approximately 1,450 hr of surveying across 180 8-hr operational survey days. Note that this scenario 

does not include similar activities that may occur in State waters or in adjacent OCS Planning Areas 

(north of Delaware Bay and south of Brevard County, Florida). Similarly, G&G activities associated with 

connected actions, such as monitoring of nearshore environmental resources or beach fill performance, 

are not included.
3-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.4.3.2.2. Geotechnical Surveys 

Projected activity levels for geotechnical sampling in the marine minerals program are summarized in 

Table 3-8. Approximately 6-24 on-lease deployments for pneumatic vibracoring, 1-4 deployments for 

geologic coring, and 2-8 deployments for grab sampling are expected to occur in the Mid- and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas. Each deployment is assumed to involve 15-25 vibracores, 1-2 standard 

(geologic or rotary) cores, and 30-40 grabs, as discussed above. It is estimated that 40-50 percent of the 

sampling will occur at existing borrow sites such as Sandbridge Shoal, Canaveral Shoals, and 

Jacksonville.

3.5. PROPOSED ACTION SCENARIO SUMMARY AND IMPACT-PRODUCING 

FACTORS

Table 3-9 summarizes scenario elements for the three program areas (oil and gas, renewable energy, 

and marine minerals). Based on the scenario, the following IPFs have been identified for the proposed 

action: 

• IPFs for Routine Activities

– active acoustic sound sources

– vessel and equipment noise

– vessel traffic

– aircraft traffic and noise

– vessel exclusion zones 

– vessel wastes – trash and debris

– seafloor disturbance

– drilling discharges

– onshore support activities

• IPFs for Accidental Events

– fuel spills

Table 3-10 summarizes the IPFs with respect to the associated survey types and program areas.

3.5.1. Impact-Producing Factors for Routine Activities

3.5.1.1. Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Active acoustic sound sources included in the proposed action include airguns, boomer, sparker, and 

chirp subbottom profilers; side-scan sonars; and multibeam depth sounders. Table 3-11 summarizes 

characteristics of these sources. Detailed characteristics and assumptions for representative sources are

discussed in Appendix D. 

3.5.1.1.1. Airguns

Airguns would be used as seismic sources during deep penetration seismic surveys for oil and gas 

exploration and small individual airguns for some postlease HRG surveys of oil and gas leases. BOEM 

does not anticipate that airguns would be used for renewable energy site assessment activities or for HRG 

surveys of marine minerals sites. The renewable energy scenario includes the possibility that a deep

penetration (2D or 3D) seismic survey would be conducted to evaluate formation suitability for carbon 

sequestration. However, given the much greater number and extent of seismic surveys included in the oil 

and gas scenario, a single seismic survey for carbon sequestration is not analyzed separately.

An airgun is a stainless steel cylinder charged with high-pressure air. The acoustic signal is generated 

when the air is released nearly instantaneously into the surrounding water column. Seismic pulses are 

typically emitted at intervals of 5-60 s, and occasionally at shorter or longer intervals.

Detailed acoustic characteristics of airguns are discussed in Appendix D. Although airguns have a 

frequency range from about 10-2,000 Hz, most of the acoustic energy is radiated at frequencies below 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-27

200 Hz. The amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from the source is equal in all directions, but airgun 

arrays do possess some directionality due to different phase delays between guns in different directions.

Individual airguns are available with a wide range of chamber volumes, from under 5 in3 to over 

2,000 in3

, depending on the survey requirements. Airgun sources can range from a single airgun 

(for HRG surveys) to a large array of airguns (for deep penetration seismic surveys). The volume of 

airgun arrays used for seismic surveys can vary from about 45 to 8,450 in3

. For this Programmatic EIS, 

two sizes of airgun arrays were modeled, based on current usage in the Gulf of Mexico, and considered 

representative for potential Atlantic G&G seismic surveys: 

• large airgun array (5,400 in3

). This array was used to represent sound sources for 

deep penetration seismic surveys, including 2D, 3D, WAZ, and other variations.

• small airgun array (90 in3

). This array was used to represent sound sources for HRG

surveys for oil and gas exploration sites.

As described in Appendix D, the large airgun array has dimensions of 16 by 15 m (52.5 by 49.2 ft) 

and consists of 18 airguns placed in three identical strings of six airguns each. The volume of individual 

airguns ranges from 105-660 in3

. The depth below the sea surface for the array was set at 6.5 m (21.3 ft). 

The small airgun array consists of two airguns of 45 in3 each, placed with 1 m (3.3 ft) separation from 

each other at a depth of 6.5 m (21.3 ft). 

Broadband source levels are 230.7 dB re 1 μPa for the large airgun array and 210.3 dB re 1 μPa for 

the small array (Table 3-11). The two arrays differ in both their total source level and the frequency

spectrum; large arrays have more low frequencies due to the presence of large volume airguns.

3.5.1.1.2. Electromechanical Sources

In HRG surveys for renewable energy development and sand source evaluation, a high-resolution 

boomer, sparker, or chirp subbottom profiler is typically used to delineate near-surface geologic strata and

features. Typical survey deployments also include single beam or multibeam depth sounders and 

side-scan sonar. The AUV surveys for oil and gas leases include a similar equipment suite. These 

electromechanical sources may also be operated simultaneously with the airguns during deep penetration 

seismic surveys.

Boomers are electromechanical sound sources that generate short, broadband acoustic pulses that are 

useful for high-resolution, shallow penetration sediment profiling. This system is commonly mounted on 

a sled and towed off the stern or alongside the ship. The reflected signal is received by a towed 

hydrophone streamer. Sparkers are also electromechanical sound sources that provide seabed profiles, 

but boomers were selected as a representative source for this Programmatic EIS since the acoustic waves 

produced by both sources are similar. Chirp systems are used for high-resolution mapping of relatively 

shallow deposits and in general have less penetration than boomers; however, newer chirp systems are 

able to penetrate to levels comparable to the boomer yet yield extraordinary detail or resolution of the 

substrate (NSF and USGS, 2011). Multibeam depth sounders emit brief pings of medium- or highfrequency sound in a fan-shaped beam extending downward and to the sides of the ship, allowing 

bathymetric mapping of swaths of the seafloor. Single beam depth sounders may also be used for 

seafloor mapping, but the multibeam depth sounder was selected as a representative source for this 

Programmatic EIS and is conservative from the standpoint of acoustic impacts.

Detailed acoustic characteristics of electromechanical sources are discussed in Appendix D. 

Electromechanical sources are considered mid- or high-frequency sources. They usually have one or two 

(sometimes three) main operating frequencies (Table 3-11). The frequency ranges for representative 

sources are 200 Hz–16 kHz for the boomer; 100 kHz and 400 kHz for the side-scan sonar; 3.5 kHz, 

12 kHz, and 200 kHz for the chirp subbottom profiler; and 240 kHz for the multibeam depth sounder. For 

all of these sources, the acoustic energy emitted outside the main operating frequency band is negligible, 

therefore these can be considered narrow-band sources. High-frequency electromechanical sources can 

be highly directive, with beam widths as narrow as a few degrees or less. Broadband source levels for the 

representative electromechanical sources analyzed in this Programmatic EIS range from 212-226 dB

re 1 μPa at 1 m (Table 3-11). 
3-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Additional sound source verification studies have been conducted since the release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM has reviewed the results of recent field verification studies of sound sources, 

including depth sounder, boomer, subbottom profiler, and multi-beam sonar (Martin et al., 2012). The 

Martin et al. (2012) field study demonstrated that SPLs for the devices tested did not exceed 

175 dB re 1 μPa for any source and that the isopleth of 160 dB (SPL) was 12 m (39 ft) or less. Received 

SPLs did not reach Level A (180 dB) and the zone of ensonification for Level B (160 dB) was very close 

to the sound source, suggesting that the potential for either a Level A or Level B impact from these 

devices was unlikely.

A BOEM-funded field verification study of electromechanical sound sources was conducted in 2012 

and examined sound emissions from a subbottom profiler (Zykov and MacDonnell, 2013). This study 

measured sound emissions of a subbottom profiler in both a shallow and deeper water location and 

compared the field results with modeling results of the modeling conducted specifically for the 

preparation of the Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities: Mid-Atlantic and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Zykov and 

MacDonnell (2013) demonstrated for the locations where the field verification was conducted that the 

received levels and/or threshold radii were significantly less than the finding reported in Appendix D. 

For 180 dB re 1 μPa and 160 dB re 1 μPa, the threshold radii were measured at 2 and 29 m (6.5 and 

95 ft), respectively. The 29-m (95-ft) measured radii for 160 dB re 1 μPa is approximately 70 percent of 

the modeled radii or a 30 percent reduction of the radii modeled. BOEM has applied this new 

information to clarify mitigation measures proposed for some specific non-airgun HRG acoustic sources.

3.5.1.2. Vessel and Equipment Noise

3.5.1.2.1. Vessel Noise

Most of the G&G activities in the proposed action scenario would be conducted from ships. The 

exception would be remote sensing methods from aircraft and satellites. The most extensive vessel 

activities are 2D and 3D seismic surveys, which could occur anywhere in the AOI. Vessels conducting 

G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy would be operating mainly at specific sites (consisting of 

one or more OCS blocks) in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. 

Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for marine minerals would be operating mainly at specific 

borrow sites in water depths less than 30 m (100 ft). 

Vessel noise is one of the main contributors to overall noise in the sea (NRC, 2003a; Jasny et al., 

2005). The survey vessels would contribute to the overall noise environment by transmitting noise 

through both air and water. Vessel noise is a combination of narrow-band (tonal) and broadband sound 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Tones typically dominate up to about 50 Hz. The majority of broadband sound 

energy is restricted to frequencies below 100-200 Hz, but broadband sounds may include acoustic energy 

at frequencies as high as 100 kHz. The primary sources of vessel noise are the propeller and machinery. 

Ship-generated noise at frequencies below 50 Hz is dominated by sound produced by propeller cavitation, 

which results from high thrust loading and non-uniform inflow of water into a propeller (Okeanos, 2008). 

Some propellers in service may also produce a high-pitched noise, often referred to as propeller singing. 

This sound typically is a clear harmonic tone usually within the practical frequency range of 

approximately from 10-1,200 Hz, although the audible range of singing could be as high as 12,000 Hz 

(HydroComp, Inc., 2003). Primary sources of machinery noise include diesel-powered propulsion

engines and ship service engines (Okeanos, 2008). Other sources of noise include auxiliaries, flow noise 

from water dragging along the hull, and bubbles breaking in the wake (Richardson et al., 1995). Propeller 

cavitation is usually the dominant noise source. The intensity of noise from service vessels is roughly 

related to ship size and speed. Large ships tend to be noisier than small ones, and ships underway with a 

full load (or towing or pushing a load) produce more noise than unladen vessels. For a given vessel, 

relative noise also tends to increase with increased speed. Ship noise also radiates asymmetrically, with 

stern aspect noise levels higher than bow aspect levels by 5-10 dB (Mckenna et al., 2012). Broadband 

source levels for most small ships (a category that would include seismic survey vessels and support 

vessels for drilling of COST wells or shallow test wells) are anticipated to be in the range of 170-180 dB

re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995). Broadband source levels for smaller boats (a category that 

would include survey vessels for renewable energy and marine minerals sites) are in the range of 

150-170 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995). Noise levels from project-related survey and 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-29

survey support vessel traffic would be spatially restricted to discrete survey areas or blocks and short-term 

or relatively short-term in duration. It is predicted that additional vessel traffic will contribute to elevated 

local ambient noise levels during surveys; however, it is expected that these levels would dissipate 

quickly with distance from the source.

3.5.1.2.2. Equipment Noise Including Drilling Noise

Drilling of COST and shallow test wells would introduce additional underwater noise into the AOI

from engines, generators, and other drilling rig equipment. The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to 

three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells would be drilled in the Mid- or South Atlantic 

Planning Areas during the time period of this Programmatic EIS. Neither the well locations nor the types 

of drilling rig are known at this programmatic stage. Jack-up rigs typically are used in water depths less 

than 100 m (328 ft) (USDOI, MMS, 2007c). Semisubmersibles are floating rigs that are used in depths 

ranging from 100 to 3,000 ft (328 to 9,843 ft) and can be either moored or dynamically positioned. 

Drillships are used in water depths greater than about 600 m (1,968 ft) and can also be moored or 

dynamically positioned (usually the latter). 

Noise from drilling operations includes strong tonal components at low frequencies (<500 Hz), 

including infrasonic frequencies in at least some cases (Richardson et al., 1995). Machinery noise can be 

continuous or transient, and variable in intensity. Noise levels vary with the type of drilling rig and the 

water depth. Drillships produce the highest levels of underwater noise because the hull containing the rig 

generators and drilling machinery is well coupled to the water. In addition, dynamically positioned 

drillships use thrusters to maintain position and are constantly emitting engine and propeller noise. 

Jack-up rigs are at the other end of the spectrum because they are supported by metal legs with only a

small surface area in contact with the water, the drilling machinery is located on decks well above the 

water, and there is no propulsion noise. Semisubmersibles are intermediate in noise level because the 

machinery is located well above the water but the pontoons supporting the structure have a large surface 

area in contact with the water. Richardson et al. (1995) noted that broadband source levels for 

semisubmersible rigs have been reported to be about 154 dB re 1 μPa. Source levels for drillships have 

been reported to be as high as 191 dB re 1 μPa during drilling.

Drilling operations would be supported by crew boats, supply vessels, and helicopters traveling 

between the drilling rig and the onshore support base. Support vessels usually make a few round trips per 

week, and helicopters typically make one round-trip daily. The characteristics of vessel noise have been 

described in Chapter 3.5.1.2.1, and aircraft noise is discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.4. 

3.5.1.3. Vessel Traffic

The G&G activities in all three program areas involve vessel traffic. Vessels conducting 2D and 3D

seismic airgun surveys are the largest vessels and would account for most of the line miles traveled. 

Based on the permit applications received by BOEM, these surveys could occur anywhere within the 

AOI. Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy would be smaller and would 

operate mainly at specific sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water depths less than 40 m 

(131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. Similarly, vessels conducting G&G surveys or 

sampling for marine minerals would be operating mainly at specific borrow sites in water depths less than 

30 m (98 ft). Survey vessels for renewable energy and marine minerals projects are expected to make 

daily round trips to their shore base, whereas the larger seismic vessels can remain offshore for weeks or 

months.

The G&G vessel traffic in the AOI would be subject to the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule 

(50 CFR § 224.105), a Federal regulation that limits vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/hr) in the 

Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs for NARWs during migration. In addition, there are other vessel 

speed restrictions in the event of the establishment of a DMA as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.1. The 

Southeast U.S. SMA, with seasonal restrictions in effect from November 15 to April 15 of each year, is a 

continuous area that extends from St. Augustine, Florida, to Brunswick, Georgia, extending 37 km 

(20 nmi) from shore. The Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA, with seasonal restrictions extending from November 1 

through April 30, is a combination of both continuous areas and half circles drawn with 37-km (20-nmi) 

radii around the entrances to certain bays and ports. Within the AOI, the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA

includes a continuous zone extending between Wilmington, North Carolina, and Brunswick, Georgia, as 
3-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

well as the Ports of Delaware Bay (Wilmington, Philadelphia), the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay (Ports 

of Hampton Roads and Baltimore), and the Ports of Morehead City and Beaufort, North Carolina.

3.5.1.3.1. Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration

Seismic survey vessels typically are 60-90 m (200-300 ft) long for 2D surveys and 80-90 m 

(262-300 ft) long for 3D surveys. The 3D surveys usually require larger vessels because there is more 

equipment to be towed. A typical towing speed is 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). These surveys could occur 

anywhere within the AOI, with 24-hr operations that may continue for weeks or months, depending upon 

the size of the survey.

The proposed action scenario includes 616,174 line km of 2D streamer surveys, 2,500 blocks of 

3D streamer surveys (or 120,000 line km, assuming 48 line km [30 line mi] per block), and 900 line km 

of 3D WAZ surveys. Assuming a vessel speed of 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr), these surveys would represent about 

90,000 hr (3,750 days) of vessel activity. In addition, non-airgun HRG surveys in support of oil and gas 

exploration represent over 21,000 hr (872 days) of vessel activity during the 2013-2020 time period. 

Non-airgun HRG surveys are typically conducted simultaneous with the airgun surveys; however, there 

may be times when they are conducted separately.

Survey vessels for both types of surveys are likely to remain offshore for most of the survey duration. 

They may be supported by supply vessels operating from ports along the Atlantic Coast, but service 

vessel support is not a requirement. For this analysis, five potential support bases were identified: 

Norfolk, Virginia; Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and 

Jacksonville, Florida. The ports were selected based on their geographic proximity to the AOI, locations 

named in permit applications for G&G activities, and the availability of adequate support facilities that 

could be used by G&G survey and support vessels.

3.5.1.3.2. Renewable Energy Surveys

Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy would operate mainly at specific 

sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water depths generally less than 40 m (131 ft) and along 

potential cable routes to shore. Typically, the vessel would return to its shore base daily.

In nearshore waters, HRG surveys would be conducted by a single, small (<23-30 m or 75-98 ft) 

vessel moving at <5 kn (<9.3 km/hr). Geotechnical surveys for renewable energy sites are expected to be 

conducted from a small barge or ship of a similar size. A typical duration for an individual survey would 

be 3 days or less.

The renewable energy scenario includes 75,000 hr of HRG surveys (Table 3-6). Assuming that HRG 

survey vessels would operate on 8-hr working days, the scenario would require 9,375 days and the same 

number of vessel round trips.

Also included in the renewable energy scenario are 6,914-22,209 geotechnical sampling locations 

where CPT testing, geologic coring, and grab sampling would be conducted. Assuming that one 

sampling location could be completed per work day, there would be approximately 6,914-22,209 vessel 

round trips associated with these surveys.

Vessel trips associated with renewable energy areas would use existing ports in Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Depending on the location of the 

renewable energy area, the surveys could operate from one of the five larger ports analyzed in this 

Programmatic EIS (Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, or Jacksonville) or any of numerous 

smaller ports along the coast, depending on whatever is convenient.

3.5.1.3.3. Marine Minerals Surveys

For HRG surveys of sand source areas, geophysical survey equipment is typically deployed from a 

single vessel, <20-30 m (65-98 ft) long, moving at about 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). Surveys are likely to focus 

on prospective borrow sites (3-10 km2

) or reconnaissance areas (on the order of 1-3 OCS blocks), and 

each survey is assumed to require 1-5 operational days for completion. Vessels are assumed to operate on

site for 8 hr per day and return to the shore base at the end of each day. 

The marine minerals scenario includes approximately 100-3,200 km of HRG prospecting surveys, 

850-4,300 km of HRG prelease/design surveys, and 900-4,600 km of on-lease HRG surveys (Table 3-7). 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-31

Across all geophysical survey activities, the maximum activity level is estimated at 12,100 km; this is the 

equivalent of approximately 1,450 hr of surveying across 180 8-hr operational survey days. The scenario 

would require 180 vessel round trips.

Nearly all geotechnical sampling occurs from either relatively small vessels approximately 20 m 

(65 ft) in length, or from work barges towed into place. The duration of a typical survey would be 3 days 

or less. The marine minerals scenario includes 6-24 deployments for pneumatic vibracoring, 

1-4 deployments for geologic coring, and 2-8 deployments for grab sampling (Table 3-8). Each 

deployment is assumed to involve 15-25 vibracores, 1-2 standard (geologic or rotary) cores, and 

30-40 grab samples, as discussed above. Total sample numbers are estimated to include 

90-600 vibracores, 1-8 geologic cores, and 60-320 grab samples. Assuming that 1 vibracore, 1 geologic 

core, or 25 grab samples can be collected per work day, there would be approximately 95-615 vessel 

round trips associated with these surveys.

Vessel trips associated for marine minerals activities would be divided among several existing ports 

in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida. Georgia is excluded 

because the State has never had an agreement with BOEM for joint study of OCS marine minerals 

resources and has never requested a non-competitive lease to use them onshore. Depending on the 

location of the renewable energy area, the surveys could operate from one of the larger ports analyzed in 

this Programmatic EIS (Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, or Jacksonville) or any of numerous 

smaller ports along the coast, depending on whatever is convenient.

3.5.1.4. Aircraft Traffic and Noise

BOEM anticipates that one or two aeromagnetic surveys may be conducted in the AOI during the 

time period covered by this Programmatic EIS. The surveys would be conducted by fixed-wing aircraft

flying at speeds of about 135 kn (250 km/hr) (Reeves, 2005). Based on aeromagnetic datasets posted by 

Fugro Gravity and Magnetic Services (2012) for the northern Gulf of Mexico, most offshore 

aeromagnetic surveys are flown at altitudes between 61-152 m (200-500 ft) and collect 

15,000-60,000 line km (9,320-37,282 line mi) of data. Line spacing varies depending on the objectives, 

but typical grids are 0.5 x 1.0 mi or 1.0 x 1.0 mi. A broad scale survey may be flown at higher altitudes 

(e.g., 305 m [1,000 ft]) and use wider line spacing (e.g., 4 x 12 mi or 8 x 24 mi). A fixed-wing aircraft 

typically acquires 20,000 line km (12,427 line mi) of useful data per month (Reeves, 2005). Therefore, it 

is expected that a typical aeromagnetic survey may require 1-3 months to complete. Based on the scale of 

aeromagnetic surveys that have been conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico, an individual survey 

probably would cover less than 10 percent of the AOI.

Helicopters are a potential source of aircraft noise during drilling of COST wells and shallow test 

wells. The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells 

would be drilled in the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas during the time period of this 

Programmatic EIS. It is expected that drilling activities would be supported by a helicopter making one 

round-trip daily between the drilling rig and onshore support base. Neither the well locations nor the 

location of potential helicopter support bases are known at this programmatic stage.

Both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft generate noise from their engines, airframe, and propellers. 

The dominant tones for both types of aircraft are generally below 500 Hz (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Richardson et al. (1995) reported received SPLs (in water) from aircraft flying at altitudes of 152 m 

(500 ft) were 109 dB re 1 μPa for a Bell 212 helicopter and 101 dB re 1 μPa for a small, fixed-wing 

aircraft (B-N Islander). Helicopters are about 10 dB louder than fixed-wing aircraft of similar size 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Penetration of aircraft noise into the water is greatest directly below the 

aircraft; at angles greater than 13o from the vertical, much of the sound is reflected and does not penetrate 

into the water (Richardson et al., 1995). The duration of underwater sound from passing aircraft is much 

shorter in water than air; for example, a helicopter passing at an altitude of 152 m (500 ft) that is audible 

in air for 4 min may be detectable underwater for only 38 s at 3 m (10 ft) depth and for 11 s at 18 m 

(59 ft) depth (Richardson et al., 1995).

All aircraft would be expected to follow U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration (USDOT, FAA, 2004) guidance, which recommends a minimum altitude of 610 m 

(2,000 ft) when flying over noise-sensitive areas such as parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. 

When flying in transit offshore, helicopters typically maintain a minimum altitude of 213 m (700 ft). 
3-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.5.1.5. Vessel Exclusion Zones

The proposed action includes extensive 2D and 3D surveys involving towed streamer arrays. The 

scenario includes 616,174 line km of 2D streamer surveys, 2,500 blocks of 3D streamer surveys

(or 120,000 line km, assuming 48 line km [30 line mi] per block), and 900 line km (559 line mi) of 

3D WAZ surveys. These surveys could occur anywhere within the AOI.

Vessels towing streamers during 2D and 3D seismic surveys follow pre-plotted track lines and have 

limited maneuverability during data acquisition. Accordingly, seismic vessels typically are accompanied 

by an escort vessel, which is used to scout the route ahead; identify hazards, such as adverse currents, 

vessel traffic, or fishing equipment; and ensure that other vessels do not cross over or interfere with the 

equipment being towed.

For safety reasons, survey operators attempt to keep a zone around the source vessel and its towed 

streamer arrays clear of other vessel traffic. The size of the vessel exclusion zone that would be 

maintained around a source vessel and its towed streamer arrays varies depending on the array 

configuration. A typical vessel exclusion zone would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km 

(0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. With the source vessel moving 

at speeds of about 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr), the length of time that any particular point would be within the 

vessel exclusion zone would be about 1 hr. 

The vessel exclusion zone is simply an area monitored by a seismic survey operator and has no 

formal status or designation by USCG. Prior to conducting a seismic survey, operators would submit 

information to the local USCG office and the local harbormaster for issuance of a Local Notice to 

Mariners. The Local Notice to Mariners would specify the survey dates and locations and the 

recommended avoidance requirements. The wording of these notices is general (e.g., “a wide berth is 

urged”). All vessels operating with restricted maneuverability are required to carry the lights and signals 

described in Rule 27 of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). Towed 

streamers are marked with an orange buoy equipped with a quick flashing light and radar reflector.

3.5.1.6. Vessel Wastes

Operational waste generated from all vessels associated with the proposed action includes bilge and 

ballast waters, trash and debris, and sanitary and domestic wastes. Bilge water is water that collects in the 

lower part of a ship. The bilge water may be contaminated by oil that leaks from the machinery within 

the vessel. The discharge of any oil or oily mixtures of greater than 15 parts per million (ppm) is 

prohibited under 33 CFR § 151.10. Ballast water is used to maintain the stability of the vessel. 

Generally, ballast water is pumped into and out of separate compartments and is not usually contaminated 

with oil. In March 2012, the USCG issued Ballast Water Discharge Standards enumerating the 

requirements for the management of ballast water (33 CFR part 151 subpart D). These changes are 

included in the USEPA’s Final 2013 Vessel General Permit and the Draft 2013 small Vessel General 

Permit (sVGP).

All vessels with toilet facilities must have Type II or Type III MSDs that comply with 

40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159. A Type II MSD macerates waste solids so that the discharge 

contains suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and a bacteria count not greater 

than 200 per 100 milliliters (ml). However, a State may prohibit the discharge of all sewage within any or 

all of its waters. Type III MSDs are holding tanks and are more common. These systems are designed to 

retain or treat the waste until it can be disposed of at the proper shoreside facilities. State and local 

governments regulate domestic or gray water discharges. Domestic waste consists of all types of wastes

generated in the living spaces on board a ship, including gray water that is generated from dishwasher, 

shower, laundry, bath, and washbasin drains. Gray water from vessels is not regulated outside the State’s 

territory and may be disposed of overboard. Gray water should not be processed through the MSD, which 

is specifically designed to handle sewage.

3.5.1.7. Trash and Debris

Survey operations generate trash made of paper, plastic, wood, glass, and metal. Most of this trash is 

associated with galley and offshore food service operations. Occasionally, some personal items such as 

hardhats and personal flotation devices are accidentally lost overboard.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-33

The discharge of trash and debris is prohibited (33 CFR §§ 151.51-77) unless it is passed through a 

comminutor (a machine that breaks up solids) and can pass through a 25-mm mesh screen. Discharge of 

plastic is prohibited regardless of size. All other trash and debris must be returned to shore for proper 

disposal with municipal and solid waste.

USCG and USEPA regulations require operators to become proactive in avoiding accidental loss of 

solid waste items by developing waste management plans, posting informational placards, manifesting 

trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental 

loss of solid waste. In addition, over the last several years, companies operating offshore have developed 

and implemented trash and debris reduction and improved handling practices to reduce the amount of 

offshore trash that could potentially be lost into the marine environment. These trash management 

practices include substituting paper and ceramic cups and dishes for those made of styrofoam, recycling 

offshore trash, and transporting and storing supplies and materials in bulk containers when feasible and 

have resulted in a reduction of accidental loss of trash and debris.

Under the proposed action, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for 

marine debris awareness. The guidance would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and 

Debris Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012). All vessel operators, employees, and 

contractors actively engaged in G&G surveys must be briefed on marine trash and debris awareness 

elimination as described in the NTL. The applicant would be required to ensure that its employees and 

contractors are made aware of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with marine trash 

and debris and their responsibilities for ensuring that trash and debris are not intentionally or accidentally 

discharged into the marine environment where it could affect protected species. 

3.5.1.8. Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance in the proposed action include the following: 

• bottom sampling activities in all three program areas;

• placement of anchors, nodes, cables, sensors, or other equipment on or in the seafloor 

for various activities in the oil and gas program;

• COST well and shallow test drilling in the oil and gas program; and

• placement of bottom-founded monitoring buoys in the renewable energy program. 

BOEM will require site-specific information regarding potential archaeological resources and 

sensitive benthic communities (including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and 

chemosynthetic communities) prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing 

activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM will use this 

information to ensure that physical impacts to archaeological resources or sensitive benthic communities 

are avoided.

BOEM has not designated specific benthic locations for avoidance in the AOI. However, likely areas 

for avoidance would include known hard/live bottom areas, known deepwater coral locations including 

Lophelia and Oculina coral sites and deepwater coral HAPCs, deepwater MPAs, Monitor and Gray’s

Reef NMSs, the Charleston Bump area, the walls of submarine canyons, and known archaeological sites. 

These benthic features and MPAs are discussed in Chapters 4.2.1.1.2 and 4.2.11.1. All authorizations 

for G&G surveys proposed within or near these areas would be subject to the review noted above to 

facilitate avoidance. BOEM has not developed specific buffer zones for sensitive benthic communities in 

the Atlantic, but it is expected that they would be similar to those that BOEM uses in the Gulf of Mexico. 

BOEM would not authorize seafloor-disturbing activities in marine sanctuaries in the AOI except in 

consultation with NOAA under the NMSA. Setbacks of 152 m (500 ft) for seafloor-disturbing activities 

would be expected that could be modified by consultations with NOAA under the NMSA for specific 

activities in proximity to an NMS.

For the renewable energy program, BOEM has issued Guidelines for Providing Geological and 

Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR part 585 (USDOI, BOEM, 

2012b). The guidelines specify that a site characterization survey must reliably cover any portion of the 

site that would be affected by seafloor-disturbing activities. The guidelines recommend avoidance as a 

primary mitigation strategy for objects of historical or archaeological significance. The applicant has the 
3-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

option to demonstrate through additional investigations that an archaeological resource either does not 

exist or would not be adversely affected by the seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities. While site 

characterization activities covered by these guidelines could identify other resource types (e.g., benthic 

communities), recommendations for conducting and reporting the results of other baseline collection 

studies (e.g., biological) would be provided by BOEM in separate guidelines.

3.5.1.8.1. Bottom Sampling Activities

The proposed action scenario includes bottom sampling activities in all three program areas. These 

include the following: 

• 50-300 core or grab samples in the oil and gas program;

• 3,106-9,969 core or grab samples in the renewable energy program; and

• 1-8 geologic cores, 60-320 grab samples, and 90-600 vibracores in the marine 

minerals program. 

Collection of each sample is estimated to disturb an area of approximately 10 m2

 (108 ft2), although 

the actual area of the core or grab extracted may be much smaller. If all of the samples in the proposed 

action scenario were collected, the total seafloor disturbance would be about 11 ha (27 ac), which 

represents 0.00001 percent of the AOI.

Sampling for oil and gas exploration would be conducted at specific lease blocks where structures 

such as drilling rigs, platforms, or pipelines may be installed. The blocks could be anywhere within the 

Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas and cannot be predicted as there are currently no active oil and gas 

leases in the Atlantic OCS.

Sampling for renewable energy projects would occur at specific sites consisting of one or more OCS 

blocks in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. Offshore 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, the likely sampling locations would be within designated WEAs

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). North Carolina has identified 500 OCS blocks of interest, but it is likely that 

sampling would occur within only a small subset of these blocks. Specific AOIs have not been identified 

for the South Atlantic states.

Sampling activities for marine minerals would be conducted at specific borrow sites in water depths 

less than 30 m (98 ft). Much of the marine minerals activity is expected to occur within existing borrow 

sites offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic states (see Chapter 4.2.12.1.3 for locations). By 

design, the sampling locations are expected to be almost exclusively sand bottom.

3.5.1.8.2. Placement of Anchors, Nodes, Cables, and Sensors

Certain surveys in oil and gas exploration require placement of anchors, nodes, cables, sensors, or 

other equipment on or in the seafloor. Ocean bottom cable and nodal surveys, vertical cable surveys, 

CSEM surveys, and MT surveys involve placement of sensors and/or anchors on the seafloor. In VSPs, 

receivers are placed in boreholes in the seafloor. Each of these activities would temporarily affect a small 

area of seafloor. After a survey is completed, the sensors are removed; anchors are either removed or left 

in place (if biodegradable). The blocks where these surveys would be conducted could be anywhere 

within the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas and cannot be predicted as there are currently no active 

oil and gas leases in the Atlantic OCS. The total area of seafloor disturbed has not been calculated.

3.5.1.8.3. COST Wells and Shallow Test Drilling

The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells would 

be drilled in the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas during the time period of this Programmatic EIS. 

Locations for COST wells and shallow test wells are unknown. However, it is likely that there would be 

some interest in a test program for gas hydrates within the proposed action scenario period, at least in the 

South Atlantic Planning Area in the Blake Plateau region. These wells could be considered either COST 

wells or shallow test drilling, depending on the penetration depth.

COST wells and shallow test wells would be drilled using conventional rotary drilling techniques. 

Seafloor disturbance would result from anchoring (if a moored drilling rig was used), placing a well
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-35

template on the seafloor, and jetting the well. The area of seafloor disturbance varies with the type of rig 

chosen to drill a well, which depends primarily on water depth (USDOI, MMS, 2007c). Jack-up rigs are 

used in shallow water and disturb approximately 1 ha (2.5 ac) for each location. Semisubmersibles can be 

operated in a wide range of water depths and disturb about 2-3 ha (5-7 ac), depending on their mooring 

configurations. In water depths >600 m (>1,969 ft), dynamically positioned drillships could be used; 

these drillships disturb only a very small area where the bottom template and wellbore are located, 

approximately 0.25 ha (0.62 ac).

For this impact analysis, the area of seafloor disturbance is assumed to average about 2 ha (5 ac) per 

well. If all of the COST wells and shallow test wells in the proposed action scenario were drilled, the 

total seafloor disturbance would be about 16 ha (40 ac), or about 0.00002 percent of the AOI.

3.5.1.8.4. Bottom-Founded Meteorological Buoys

As part of the renewable energy program, lessees may install bottom-founded meteorological buoys. 

The Programmatic EIS assumes that lessees would choose to install buoys instead of meteorological 

towers. These buoys would be anchored at fixed locations and regularly collect observations from many 

different atmospheric and oceanographic sensors.

Meteorological buoys would typically be towed or carried aboard a vessel to the installation location. 

Once at the location site, the buoy would be either lowered to the surface from the deck of the transport 

vessel or placed over the final location and then the mooring anchor dropped. A boat-shaped buoy in 

shallower waters of the AOI may be moored with an all-chain mooring, while a larger discus-type buoy 

would use a combination of chain, nylon, and buoyant polypropylene materials (USDOC, NDBC, 2011). 

After installation, the transport vessel would remain in the area for several hours while technicians 

configure proper operation of all systems. Buoys would typically take 1 day to install. Transport and 

installation vessel anchoring for 1 day is anticipated for these types of buoys. Decommissioning of buoys 

is essentially the reverse of the installation process.

The proposed action scenario includes 7-52 buoys that may be installed within the AOI during the 

time period of this Programmatic EIS. Anchors for boat-shaped and discus-shaped buoys would have a 

footprint of about 0.55 m2

 (6 ft2) and an anchor sweep of about 3.4 ha (8.5 ac) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). 

The larger anchor sweep area is used to estimate seafloor disturbance. If all of the monitoring buoys in 

the proposed action scenario were installed, the total seafloor disturbance would be about 177 ha (437 ac), 

or about 0.0002 percent of the AOI.

3.5.1.9. Drilling Discharges

The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells would be drilled in the AOI during the 

time period of this Programmatic EIS. COST wells are drilled using conventional rotary drilling 

techniques, the same as those routinely used for drilling oil and gas exploration and development wells. 

During the process, drilling fluid and cuttings are discharged, disperse in the water column, and 

accumulate on the seafloor (NRC, 1983; Neff, 1987; Neff et al., 2000).

During the initial stage of drilling, a large diameter surface hole is jetted a few hundred meters into 

the seafloor. An NPDES permit must be obtained from USEPA in order to discharge drilling fluids and 

cuttings as well as any other possible produced waters (e.g., bilge, ballast, fire, cooling, sanitary and 

domestic waste, and deck drainage) that may be associated with COST well drilling (Chapter 1.6.10). At 

this stage, the cuttings and seawater used as drilling fluid are discharged onto the seafloor. A continuous 

steel pipe known as a surface casing is lowered into the hole and cemented in place. A blowout preventer 

(BOP) is installed on the top of the surface casing to prevent water or hydrocarbons from escaping into 

the environment. Once the BOP is fully pressure tested, the next section of the well is drilled.

The marine riser is a pipe with special fittings that establishes a seal between the top of the wellbore 

and the drilling rig. After it is set, all drilling fluid and cuttings are returned to the drilling rig and passed 

through a solids control system designed to remove cuttings and silt so that the drilling fluids may be 

recirculated downhole. The drill cuttings, typically sand or gravel-sized with any residual drilling mud 

attached, are then discharged via the shale chute.

The typical drilling fluids in widespread use on the OCS are water-based fluids (WBFs) or syntheticbased fluids (SBFs). Oil-based drilling fluids (OBFs) have the potential to be used where additional 

lubricity would be needed; however, OBFs are likely to be replaced by SBF in deepwater drilling because 
3-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

of the many advantageous features of SBF (Neff et al., 2000). They are now rarely used in deepwater 

drilling operations and only occasionally on the shelf. Typically, the upper portion of exploration wells 

are drilled with WBF to a depth in the range of 800-2,000 m (2,625-6,562 ft) and, following 

“switchover,” the remainder is drilled with SBF (USDOI, MMS, 2007c). 

During well intervals when WBF systems are used, cuttings and adsorbed WBF solids are discharged 

to the ocean at a rate of 0.2-2.0 m3

/hr (Neff, 1987). Overboard discharge of WBF results in increased 

turbidity in the water column, alteration of sediment characteristics because of coarse material in cuttings, 

and elevated concentrations of some trace metals (NRC, 1983; Neff, 1987). In shallow environments, 

WBFs are rapidly dispersed in the water column immediately after discharge and quickly descend to the 

seafloor, whereas in deeper water, fluids discharged at the sea surface are dispersed over a wider area 

(Neff, 1987). 

Synthetic-based fluids are manufactured hydrocarbons without aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) characteristic of OBFs, which is partly why OBFs are now very rarely 

used on the United States OCS. When SBF systems are used, the SBF is returned to shore for recycling, 

and the only discharge consists of SBF adhering to cuttings. Retention on cuttings would be subject to 

regulatory limits; for example, under the current NPDES permit for USEPA Region IV in the Gulf of 

Mexico, the limits are 6.9 percent for internal olefins and 9.4 percent for esters (USEPA, 2010). SBFwetted cuttings typically settle close to the discharge point and affect the local sediments and any benthic 

invertebrates in proximity (Neff et al., 2000; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006).

The average exploration well in the Gulf of Mexico is approximately 3,674 m (12,055 ft) below 

mudline (USDOI, MMS, 2007c) and is equivalent to an Atlantic COST well in depth. Each well 

discharges about 7,000-9,700 bbl of WBF and 1,500-2,500 bbl of cuttings (USEPA, 1993, 2000). 

Assuming an average of 2,000 bbl of cuttings and 8,350 bbl of drilling fluid discharged per well, the total 

volumes for 1-3 COST wells would range from 2,000 to 6,000 bbl of cuttings and from 8,350 to 

25,050 bbl of drilling fluid.

Shallow test wells for gas hydrate will also result in drilling fluid and cuttings discharges. The oil 

and gas exploration scenario estimates up to five shallow test wells in the AOI. It is likely that, at the 

least, there would be some interest within the proposed action scenario period in a test program for gas 

hydrates in the South Atlantic Planning Area in the Blake Plateau region. Gas hydrate wells are from 

152 m (500 ft) to a few thousand feet deep because gas hydrates are found in shallow depths within the 

sediment due to the physico-chemical requirements for their stability. In the Gulf of Mexico, test 

programs for gas hydrates were fielded in 2005 (Birchwood et al., 2008) and 2009 (Boswell et al., 2009). 

The deepest well for the 2009 test program was 1,122 m (3,680 ft) below mudline. Wells this shallow 

would yield a few hundred barrels of drilling fluid and cuttings each.

3.5.1.10. Onshore Support Activities

All of the vessels involved in G&G activities would operate out of onshore support bases. Ports and 

service bases serve as launching points for the structures, equipment, supplies, and crew that serve the 

offshore G&G industry. In addition to providing berthing space, fuel, and supplies, these bases may 

provide products and services such as engine repair, electric generators, chains, gears, tools, pumps, 

compressors, and a variety of other tools and equipment. 

Seismic surveys for oil and gas exploration are conducted by large ships that are likely to remain 

offshore for most of their survey duration. These typically are foreign-flagged vessels that may mobilize 

from ports outside the AOI, but they may travel periodically (e.g., about every 30 days) to an onshore 

support base in the AOI for fuel, supplies, equipment repairs, and crew changes. Based on the estimate of 

about 3,750 days of seismic survey vessel activity as indicated in Chapter 3.5.1.3, and assuming a port 

visit every 30 days, the total number of port visits for the proposed action scenario would be 125. For this 

analysis, five ports were identified as potential support bases: Port of Virginia (Norfolk, Virginia), 

Wilmington (North Carolina), Charleston (South Carolina), Savannah (Georgia), and Jacksonville 

(Florida). The ports were selected based on their geographic proximity to the AOI, locations named in 

permit applications for G&G activities, and the availability of adequate support facilities that could be 

used by G&G survey and support vessels. The surveys would likely be conducted by existing 

geophysical firms with a crew size of about 40 per vessel. Due to the specialized expertise required for 

these surveys, little or no local employment would be expected.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-37

Survey vessels for renewable energy or marine minerals would be relatively small and are expected to 

make daily round trips to their shore base. Depending on the location of the survey area, these vessels 

could operate from one of the five ports analyzed in this Programmatic EIS, or any of numerous smaller 

ports along the coast, depending on whatever is convenient. Surveys would likely be conducted by 

existing engineering or oceanographic/environmental firms with little or no new employment. The crew 

size for these smaller vessels could range from 10 to 20 people. The vessels would be expected to 

purchase fuel, supplies, and services locally. As estimated in Chapter 3.5.1.3, the renewable energy 

scenario would require 4,255 vessel round trips for HRG surveys and 3,106-9,969 vessel round trips for 

geotechnical surveys. The marine minerals scenario would require 180 vessel round trips for HRG 

surveys and 93-615 vessel round trips for geotechnical surveys.

3.5.2. Impact-Producing Factors for Accidental Events 

3.5.2.1. Accidental Fuel Spills

Vessel fuel capacities generally depend on vessel size, which varies according to the nature of the 

survey (for example, 3D surveys use larger vessels than 2D surveys). A large seismic survey vessel may 

carry between 100,000 and 1.1 million gal (2,380 and 27,000 bbl) of fuel, including diesel and fuel oil

(CGGVeritas, 2011; Geophysical Service, Inc., 2011a, b). Smaller coastal vessels may carry several 

thousand gallons.

Vessels involved in G&G activities off the mid- and south Atlantic coasts could be involved in 

collisions or other accidents that result in a fuel spill. Spill size would depend on the type of vessel, the 

severity of the event, and whether the fuel storage is compartmentalized.

All G&G vessels are required to comply with USCG requirements relating to prevention and control 

of oil spills. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this analysis, a spill scenario was evaluated – a release of 

1.2-7.1 bbl of diesel fuel caused by either a vessel collision or an accident during fuel transfer. The 

volume is based on spill statistics for the period 2000-2009 developed by the USDHS, USCG (2011b). 

During this period, there were 1,521-5,220 spills per year from vessels other than tankers and tank barges. 

Total annual spill volumes from these vessels ranged from 92,388 to 453,901 gal, resulting in average 

spill sizes ranging between 49.6 and 297.3 gal, or 1.2 and 7.1 bbl.

The likelihood of a fuel spill during seismic surveys or other G&G activities is expected to be remote. 

For example, in their programmatic analysis of impacts associated with seismic research, NSF and USGS 

(2011) note that there has never been a recorded oil/fuel spill during more than 54,000 nmi (100,000 km) 

of previous NSF-funded seismic surveys.

The potential for impacts from a 1.2- to 7.1-bbl diesel fuel spill would depend greatly on the location 

of the spill, meteorological conditions at the time, and the speed with which cleanup plans and equipment 

could be employed. Diesel fuel is a refined petroleum product that is lighter than water. It may float on 

the water’s surface or be dispersed into the water column by waves. It is assumed that spilled fuel would 

rapidly spread to a layer of varying thickness and break up into narrow bands or windrows parallel to the 

wind direction. Diesel is a distillate of crude oil and does not contain the heavier components that 

contribute to crude oil’s longer persistence in the environment. Small diesel spills (500-5,000 gal) will 

usually evaporate and disperse within a day or less, even in cold water (USDOC, NOAA, 2006); thus, 

seldom is there any oil on the surface for responders to recover. However, what is commonly referred to 

as “marine diesel” is often a heavier intermediate fuel oil that will persist longer when spilled. When 

spilled on water, diesel oil spreads very quickly to a thin film of rainbow and silver sheens, except for 

marine diesel, which may form a thicker film of dull or dark colors (USDOC, NOAA, 2006). There is the 

potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel components to adhere to particulate matter in the upper 

portion of the water column and sink. Particulate matter contaminated with diesel fuel could eventually 

reach the benthos either within or outside the AOI, depending upon spill location, water depth, ambient 

currents, and sinking rate.

3.6. CUMULATIVE ACTIVITIES SCENARIO

The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA define cumulative effects as the impact on the 

environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 
3-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

undertakes such other actions (40 CFR § 1508.7). Cumulative effects may result from the accumulation 

of similar effects, or the synergistic interaction of different effects (CEQ, 1997b). The Programmatic EIS

addresses G&G activities within the 2012-2020 time frame, and a cumulative activity scenario has been 

developed for the same period as recommended by the CEQ (1997b) guidelines. The reasonably 

foreseeable future activities described below are part of the cumulative scenario.

3.6.1. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

There are currently no active oil and gas leases or oil and gas exploration, development, or production 

activities on the Atlantic OCS. Ten oil and gas lease sales were held in the Atlantic between 1976 and 

1983. Fifty-one wells were drilled on the Atlantic OCS between 1975 and 1984, including one well in the 

Mid-Atlantic Planning Area and seven wells in the South Atlantic Planning Area (Chapter 4.2.12.1.6). 

Leasing in these planning areas is not proposed for the 2012-2017 Five-Year Program (USDOI,

BOEM, 2011b). Oil and gas exploration and development activities that could occur before 2018 would 

be limited to the prelease G&G activities that are analyzed in this Programmatic EIS. Depending on 

authorizations required by other agencies, surveys could take place as soon as BOEM completes the 

NEPA evaluation. BOEM would expect to evaluate the site-specific attributes for G&G permit 

applications that include the environmental consultations required by law. Processing of permit 

applications is typically carried out within approximately 45-60 days.

If a lease sale were held in the next 5-year program (2017-2022), it is possible, but unlikely, that 

1-3 exploration wells could begin before the end of the cumulative activities scenario in 2020. For that to 

happen, however, the necessary OCSLA steps and NEPA evaluations that are required to authorize a 

lease sale would have to proceed. Under these circumstances, exploration well locations cannot be 

predicted because they would depend on the results of a lease sale. Impacts of exploration drilling have 

been studied extensively and are summarized in recent lease sale EISs for the Gulf of Mexico (USDOI, 

MMS, 2007c; USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011c). Reasonably foreseeable IPFs for exploration drilling include: 

• seafloor disturbance and turbidity due to placement of a well template on the 

seafloor, jetting of the well, and anchoring of drilling rigs (if a moored drilling unit is 

used);

• discharges of drilling fluid, drill cuttings, and other effluents from drilling rigs;

• presence of drilling rigs, including underwater and airborne noise and lights;

• support vessel and helicopter traffic;

• air emissions from drilling rigs, as well as support vessels and helicopters;

• onshore waste disposal; 

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris; 

• a risk of fuel spills from drilling rigs or support vessels; and

• a risk of a crude oil spill from a well blowout.

3.6.2. Renewable Energy Development

Offshore wind facilities are currently the most likely type of renewable energy development in the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. BOEM has received only one plan for an MHK project 

proposal in the Atlantic, but it is located in the Straits of Florida Planning Area, outside the scope of this 

Programmatic EIS. 

Geographically, wind facility development could occur offshore any of the states in the AOI. The 

distance from shore for a wind facility is generally defined at the outward limit of its economic viability, 

currently about 46 km (25 nmi) from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water depth.

In the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area, BOEM published Requests for Interest for WEAs offshore 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. In July 2011, BOEM issued a Draft EA for these areas that included 

changes to the extent of the Maryland and Virginia WEAs (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011a). Then in January 

2012, BOEM issued a final EA for these areas that included changes to the extent of the Maryland and 

Virginia WEAs (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). Following the issuance of the final EA, Virginia and North 

Carolina published Calls for Information and Nominations for both Virginia and North Carolina 

(Federal Register, 2012a,b). More information about these locations is provided in Chapter 4.2.12.1.4. 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-39

In May 2011, North Carolina completed a screening exercise to yield a candidate area of 

500 OCS lease blocks meeting their criteria for wind facility development (Thrive in North Carolina, 

2011). The screening exercise was to evaluate for potential environmental suitability, and the area is not 

proposed for wind development at this time. BOEM expects that all 500 blocks would not be proposed 

for leasing or actually leased to begin site assessment activities within the period covered by this 

Programmatic EIS. Based on continuing conversations between the State and Federal partners, a more 

likely number is 75 blocks that will eventually be assessed, beginning in late 2012 or early 2013.

For the states adjacent to the South Atlantic Planning Area (South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), 

BOEM has not published Requests for Interest, and there is no other specific information to estimate the 

activity level in these areas. For the analysis of G&G activities in this Programmatic EIS, the activity 

level has been estimated at 30 lease blocks offshore each of these states.

Atlantic Grid Holdings LLC has proposed to develop a high-voltage direct current transmission cable 

offshore the Atlantic Coast running from northern New Jersey to Virginia in five phases (Atlantic Wind 

Connection, 2011a,b). The company has requested a right-of-way that is approximately 1,320 km 

(820 mi) in length, with as many as a dozen offshore platforms (substations). About 90 percent of the 

right-of-way is in Federal waters.

Within the 2012-2020 time period covered by this Programmatic EIS, it is likely that site 

characterization and site assessment activities would be conducted for WEAs, and these would include 

the types of G&G surveys analyzed in this Programmatic EIS. The level and timing of actual wind 

facility construction is difficult to predict. BOEM’s experience with the Cape Wind Project offshore 

Massachusetts, as well as its understanding of the evolution of the wind industry offshore northern 

Europe, has demonstrated that rapidly changing technology, different wind resources and wave 

conditions, various seabed characteristics, different project economics, and the variety of possible project 

designs can affect whether, to what extent, and how a lease is ultimately developed. Additionally, project 

design and the resulting environmental impacts are often geographically and design specific, and 

therefore it would be premature to project activity levels for wind facility development at this time.

Potential impacts of wind facility development have been analyzed at a programmatic level by 

USDOI, MMS (2007a). Reasonably foreseeable IPFs include the following:

• seafloor disturbance and turbidity due to installation of wind turbines and cables;

• presence of structures (including risk of avian collisions with turbine blades);

• construction vessel traffic and associated effluent discharges, air emissions, and 

noise; 

• underwater noise from pile driving during turbine installation, and from routine 

turbine operations;

• onshore waste disposal; 

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris; and

• a risk of fuel spills from construction vessels.

3.6.3. Marine Minerals Use

Chapter 4.2.12.1.3 describes previous usage of OCS sand for beach restoration and shoreline 

protection projects in the coastal states adjacent to the AOI. Between 1995 and 2011, BOEM issued more 

than 20 negotiated agreements along the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas authorizing use of 

OCS sand resources from borrow areas offshore of Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida in 

recreational beach, storm and hurricane damage protection, and infrastructure protection projects

(USDOI, BOEM, 2011a). 

Over the time frame of this Programmatic EIS (2012-2020), BOEM anticipates that OCS sand 

resources will continue to be used for beach restoration and shoreline protection projects. Most OCS 

usable sand bodies are already known and have been surveyed and/or used previously. Previously used 

OCS sand and gravel borrow areas within the AOI are as follows:

• Great Gull Bank Borrow Area (offshore Ocean City, Maryland);

• Sandbridge Shoal Borrow Area (offshore Virginia Beach, Virginia);

• Wallops Island Shoal A (offshore Assateague Island, Virginia); 
3-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

• Morehead City ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) (offshore Bogue 

Banks, North Carolina); 

• Little River Borrow Area (offshore North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina);

• Cane South Borrow Area (offshore Myrtle Beach, South Carolina);

• Surfside Borrow Area (offshore Garden City, South Carolina);

• Duval Borrow Area (offshore Jacksonville, Florida); and

• Canaveral Shoals II Borrow Area (offshore Brevard County, Florida). 

Existing and potential borrow sites are listed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.3 and shown in Figures 4-38a,b,c. 

The general area where sand mining will likely occur between 2012 and 2020 is in water depths between 

10 and 30 m (33 and 98 ft) offshore Delaware south to Florida. Georgia is excluded because the State has 

never had an agreement with BOEM for joint study of OCS marine minerals resources and has never 

requested a non-competitive lease to use them onshore. Current technology in the U.S. hopper and 

cutterhead dredging fleet effectively limits dredging to less than 30-m (98-ft) water depths. Moreover, 

the cost for transporting sand located in offshore sand shoals and banks to shore is relatively expensive, 

ensuring coastal planners first use resources in areas closest to shore.

The marine minerals program has identified beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects that 

are most likely to require use of OCS sand resources over the next 10 years (Table 3-7). The proposed

activity scenario is based on an examination of past trends in OCS G&G and leasing activity and 

anticipated OCS leasing requests, as well as projections of other possible uses as existing borrow areas 

are nearing depletion. Based on past usage, a few existing borrow sites such as Sandbridge Shoal 

offshore Virginia and the Canaveral Shoals and Jacksonville borrow sites offshore Florida are likely to be 

reused, perhaps accounting for 40-50 percent of future projects.

Impacts of sand and gravel mining along the Atlantic Coast have been evaluated in several studies 

(Louis Berger Group, Inc., 1999; Byrnes et al., 2003; Hammer et al., 2005; Michel et al., 2013). 

Reasonably foreseeable IPFs for OCS sand mining include the following:

• seafloor disturbance, turbidity, and benthic habitat alterations due to dredging;

• a risk of direct physical impacts to sea turtles (e.g., by hopper dredges);

• vessel traffic and associated effluent discharges, air emissions, and noise; 

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris; and

• a risk of fuel spills from dredging vessels.

3.6.4. Geosequestration

Geosequestration is the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a deep 

reservoir beneath the earth’s surface. An example of one such potential project is PURGeN One, an 

onshore 400-MW coal-fueled integrated gasification combined cycle electric-generating and 

manufacturing facility that has been proposed for construction in Linden, New Jersey (PurGen, 2011). 

The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the new plant and potentially neighboring industrial operations, 

totaling up to approximately 6 million tons annually, would be captured and transported via a submarine 

pipeline to injection wells 113 km (70 mi) off the Atlantic Coast for sequestration approximately 2,438 m 

(8,000 ft) beneath the seabed (PurGen, 2011). Although the proposed location is outside the AOI, the 

project provides an example of the type of geosequestration project that could occur within the AOI 

during the time period of this Programmatic EIS. 

The OCSLA, as amended by the EPAct of 2005, gave BOEM the authority to issue leases, easements, 

and rights-of-way for activities that “produce or support production, transportation, or transmission of 

energy from sources other than oil and gas.” In certain circumstances, subseabed CO2 sequestration falls 

under this authority, including CO2 produced as by-product of the production of electricity from a 

coal-fired power plant. BOEM is developing regulations to implement its authority, conducting a 

worldwide literature synthesis, and developing Best Management Practices for CO2 transport and 

sequestration projects on the OCS (USDOI, BOEM, 2011d). 

Geosequestration projects would require G&G activities to evaluate the suitability of subsea 

formations, drilling of CO2 injection wells, and construction of a pipeline to shore. Reasonably 

foreseeable IPFs would be similar to those for oil and gas exploration and development and would include
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-41

• seafloor disturbance due to placement of a well template on the seafloor, jetting of 

wells, and anchoring of drilling rigs (if a moored drilling unit is used);

• seafloor disturbance due to pipeline installation, including anchoring of pipelaying 

vessels (if moored pipelaying barges are used);

• discharges of drilling fluid, drill cuttings, and other effluents from drilling rigs;

• presence of drilling rigs, including underwater and airborne noise and lights;

• support vessel and helicopter traffic;

• air emissions from drilling rigs, as well as support vessels and helicopters;

• onshore waste disposal; 

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris; and

• a risk of fuel spills from drilling rigs, support vessels, or pipelaying vessels.

3.6.5. Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a form of natural gas that is used mainly for transport to markets, 

where the liquid is regasified and distributed via pipeline networks. LNG is imported to the U.S. through 

both offshore and onshore terminals. Licensing of offshore LNG terminals (deepwater ports) is under the 

jurisdiction of USCG and the Maritime Administration (MARAD). Onshore LNG terminals are licensed 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are two USCG/MARAD licensed 

deepwater ports offshore the Atlantic Coast – Neptune and Northeast Gateway, both located offshore 

Massachusetts. There are no active, pending applications for deepwater ports on the Atlantic Coast

(USDHS, USCG, 2010). In Atlantic states, an LNG import terminal has been approved (but is not under 

construction) for Baltimore, Maryland; an import terminal is proposed for Robbinston, Maine; and export 

terminals have been proposed for Cove Point, Maryland; and Elba Island, Georgia (FERC, 2012) 

(http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng.asp). 

Because there are no active, pending deepwater port applications, the cumulative scenario assumes 

that no deepwater LNG port construction will occur within the AOI during the 2012-2020 period. The 

development of shale gas in Appalachian Basin black shales has created a significant new source of 

onshore gas in proximity to major use areas along Atlantic Coast States. Planning for LNG facilities, in 

general, has been complicated by this development, making it difficult to predict the level of future LNG 

port construction. However, over the 2012-2020 time period, it is reasonable to assume that no additional 

deepwater LNG port construction will occur. The main, reasonably foreseeable IPFs associated with 

routine operations of the existing LNG terminals are vessel traffic, along with the associated discharges, 

air emissions, and noise. 

3.6.6. Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Chapters 4.2.7 and 4.2.8 describe commercial and recreational fishing activities in the AOI. 

Although there are interannual and seasonal variations in both types of activities, as well as geographic 

differences among states, there are no apparent long-term temporal trends in the level of these activities. 

Over the 2012-2020 time period of this Programmatic EIS, it is assumed that these activities will continue 

at about the present level. Reasonably foreseeable IPFs associated with commercial and recreational 

fishing include the following: 

• direct taking of fish and shellfish resources, including targeted species and bycatch; 

• incidental taking of protected species; 

• seafloor disturbance and turbidity due to trawling and dredging;

• vessel traffic, including the associated effluent discharges, air emissions, and noise; 

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris (e.g., discarded fishing line); and

• a risk of fuel spills from commercial and recreational vessels.

3.6.7. Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use

Most of the AOI is within Military Use Areas, as discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.2. Military activities 

can include various air-to-air, air-to-surface, and surface-to-surface naval fleet training, submarine and 
3-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

antisubmarine training, and Air Force exercises. Where naval vessels and aircraft conduct operations that 

are not compatible with commercial or recreational transportation, they are confined to Operating Areas 

(OPAREAs) away from commercially used waterways and inside Special Use Airspace 

(U.S. Fleet Forces, 2009). Hazardous operations are communicated to all vessels and operators by use of 

Notices-to-Mariners issued by USCG and Notices-to-Airmen issued by the FAA.

A comprehensive summary and analysis of current and expected future USDON operations within 

and adjacent to the AOI can be found in several recent Navy EISs (e.g., Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing [AFTT] EIS/OEIS [USDON, 2012]; Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training EIS/OEIS [USDON, 

2008]). Supporting documentation to the most recent Navy EIS/OEIS (USDON, 2012) also includes 

OPAREA-specific Navy environmental planning documents, including the Virginia Capes (VACAPES) 

Range Complex EIS/OEIS, the Cherry Point Range Complex EIS/OEIS, and the Jacksonville (JAX) 

Range Complex EIS/OEIS, all of which are outlined in Chapter 4.2.12.1.2. 

One of the primary purposes of the 2012 AFTT EIS/OEIS was to consolidate all of the relevant 

planning documents into a single EIS/OEIS. In addition, the Navy evaluated the No Action alternative 

and two additional alternatives in its 2012 analysis. The No Action alternative defined by the Navy 

(USDON, 2012) encompassed a continuation of current activity levels, while the alternatives considered 

proposed expansion of areas of operation and duration of activities.

The purpose of the 2012 Navy analysis included the following: 

• Reassessing the environmental analysis of Navy at-sea training and testing activities 

contained in six separate EISs/OEISs and various EAs/Overseas Environmental 

Assessments (OEAs) and consolidating those analyses into a single environmental 

planning document. This reassessment was designed to support reauthorization of 

incidental takes of marine mammals under the MMPA and incidental takes of 

threatened and endangered marine species through consultation under Section 7 of 

the ESA. The following six EIS/OEIS documents were consolidated (the latter two 

of which are not relevant to the current G&G analysis): 

o Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training,

o VACAPES Range Complex, 

o Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, 

o JAX Range Complex,

o Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Mission Activities, and the

o Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) Range Complex.

• Incorporating the training activities occurring on the Undersea Warfare Training 

Range contained in the Undersea Warfare Training Range EIS. 

• Adjusting baseline training and testing activities from current levels to the level 

needed to support Navy training and testing requirements beginning January 2014. 

As part of the adjustment, the Navy proposed to account for other activities and 

sound sources not addressed in the previous analyses.

• Analyzing the potential environmental impacts of training and testing activities in 

additional areas (areas not covered in previous documents) where training and testing 

historically occurs, including Navy ports, naval shipyards, and Navy-contractor 

shipyards, and the transit channels serving these areas.

• Updating the at-sea environmental impact analyses in the previous documents to 

account for force structure changes, including those resulting from the development, 

testing, and use of weapons, platforms, and systems that will be operational by 2019.

• Implementing enhanced range capabilities.

• Updating environmental analyses with the best available science and most current 

acoustic analysis methods to evaluate the potential effects of training and testing 

activities on the marine environment.

The importance of Navy activities that occur in the AOI rests with their location, the nature of the 

activity, and the magnitude of vessel operations; the acoustic sources employed by the Navy during 

various exercises, testing, and training; and the mitigation measures employed to reduce impact. Naval 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-43

training exercises and testing activities that occur adjacent to or within the AOI, and that may include the 

use of active sonar and explosives, occur primarily within existing range complexes and testing ranges 

along the east coast of the U.S., as well as at Navy pierside locations, within port transit channels, and 

within portions of the lower Chesapeake Bay. As such, these activities have similar potential for impact 

to marine resources in the AOI.

Due to the size and level of detail presented to characterize the various Navy operations, training, and 

testing activities (USDON, 2012), the reader is referred to a series of tables presented in the 2012 Navy 

analysis for a comprehensive listing of activities expected (No Action alternative) or proposed 

(Alternatives 1 and 2) in the Atlantic region. Specifically, Tables 2.8-1, 2.8-2, and 2.8-3 of the Navy’s 

2012 analysis summarize the training and testing activities that may occur. Table 3-12 is provided in the 

current G&G analysis to summarize Navy exercises within and adjacent to the AOI that constitute a 

majority of the surface and subsurface vessel movements and acoustic source activities expected under 

current Navy operational parameters. As of February 2013, it remains to be determined whether 

expansion of the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet operations will be approved; consequently, the data presented in 

Table 3-12 represent the Navy’s No Action alternative.

The 2012 AFTT EIS/OEIS evaluated the effects of Navy operations on a variety of marine resources 

and presented a series of impact determinations, based on various stressors associated with proposed 

Navy training and testing operations. Stressor categories for biological resources included (1) acoustic 

stressors (i.e., sonar and other active sources, explosives, pile driving, swimmer defense airguns, noise

from weapons firing, vessel and aircraft noise); (2) energy stressors (i.e., electromagnetic devices, high 

energy lasers); (3) physical disturbance and strike stressors (i.e., vessels, in-water devices, aircraft and 

aerial targets, military expended materials, seafloor devices); (4) entanglement stressors (i.e., fiber optic 

cables and guidance wires); and (5) ingestion stressors (i.e., military expended materials from munitions, 

military expended materials other than munitions). Secondary stressors, including indirect impacts on 

habitat and prey (e.g., prey availability) were also considered in the analysis. Stressors for physical 

resources (e.g., sediments and water quality) included explosives and explosive byproducts, metals, 

chemicals other than explosives, and other materials.

On a resource-specific basis, the Navy determined the following in terms of stressors and potential 

impacts:

• Sediments and Water Quality: Stressors analyzed included explosives and 

explosive byproducts, metals, chemicals other than explosives, and other materials. 

Resulting impacts could include local, short- and long-term changes in sediments and 

water quality. However, chemical, physical, or biological changes to sediments or 

water quality would be below applicable standards, regulations, and guidelines and 

would be within existing conditions or designated uses. The short-term impacts 

would arise from explosions and the byproducts of explosions and combusted 

propellants. The long-term impacts would arise from unexploded ordnance, 

non-combusted propellant, metals, and other materials.

• Marine Habitats: Analysis included acoustic stressors and physical disturbance and 

strike stressors. Resulting impacts could include localized disturbance of the 

seafloor, cratering of soft bottom sediments, and structural damage to hard bottom

habitats. Impacts on soft bottom habitats would be short-term, and impacts on hard 

bottom would be long-term.

• Marine Mammals: Analysis included acoustic stressors, energy stressors, physical 

disturbance and strike stressors, entanglement stressors, ingestion stressors, and 

secondary stressors. Acoustic and explosive stressors would impact individual 

marine mammals, but marine mammal populations would not be adversely affected. 

Sonar and other active acoustic sources, explosives sources, and vessel strikes may 

affect and are likely to adversely affect some ESA-listed marine mammals. The 

remaining stressors are not expected to result in mortality or in Level A or B 

harassment of marine mammals and would have no effect or may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, ESA-listed marine mammals. Some stressors would 

impact individuals of certain marine mammal species, but impacts were not expected 

to decrease the overall fitness of any marine mammal population.
3-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

• Sea Turtles and Other Marine Reptiles: Analysis included acoustic stressors, 

energy stressors, physical disturbance and strike stressors, entanglement stressors, 

ingestion stressors, and secondary stressors. All five sea turtle species considered are 

ESA-listed species. Acoustic modeling predicted that sonar and other active acoustic

sources and explosive sources may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, sea 

turtles. In addition, vessel and in-water device strikes could result in sea turtle injury 

and mortality.

• Birds: Analysis included acoustic stressors, energy stressors, physical disturbance 

and strike stressors, and ingestion stressors. Potential responses included a startle 

response, which includes short-term behavioral (e.g., movement) and physiological 

components (e.g., increased heart rate). Recovery from the impacts of most stressor 

exposures would occur quickly, and impacts would be localized. Some stressors, 

including underwater explosions, physical strikes, and ingestion of plastic military 

expended materials, may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, birds. 

However, the number of individual birds affected would be low, and no 

population-level impacts were expected.

• Marine Vegetation: Analysis included acoustic stressors and physical disturbance 

and strike stressors. Potential impacts included localized disturbance and mortality. 

Potential impacts from acoustic stressors and physical disturbance and strike stressors 

were not expected to result in detectable changes to marine vegetation growth, 

survival, or propagation and were not expected to result in population-level impacts.

• Marine Invertebrates: Analysis included acoustic stressors, energy stressors, 

physical disturbance and strike stressors, entanglement stressors, and ingestion

stressors. Potential impacts included short-term behavioral and physiological 

responses. Some stressors could also result in injury or mortality to a relatively small 

number of individuals but not to ESA-listed corals. No population-level impacts 

were anticipated.

• Fishes: Analysis included acoustic stressors, energy stressors, physical disturbance 

and strike stressors, entanglement stressors, and ingestion stressors. Potential 

impacts included short-term behavioral and physiological responses. Some stressors 

could also result in injury or mortality to a relatively small number of individuals but 

not to ESA-listed fishes. No population-level impacts were anticipated. No effects 

on ESA-listed fishes were expected. 

NASA also has designated downrange danger zones and has identified patterns for recent debris

cones from rocket tests that represent hazards for surface activities after such tests. There are also 

restricted areas for rocket testing, satellite launches, and other range mission activities. NASA restricted 

areas within the AOI include areas offshore the Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC’s) Wallops Flight 

Facility (WFF) in Virginia and offshore of the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.

NASA’s GSFC owns and operates the launch range at the WFF, which is located on Virginia’s 

eastern shore. NASA is expected to continue to conduct science, technology, and educational flight 

projects from WFF aboard rockets, balloons, and uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs), using Atlantic 

waters for operations on almost a daily basis. Since 2006, launches from WFF have grown in number and 

importance to the Nation’s space and national defense priorities and programs. The WFF is one of the 

Nation’s few launch ranges to support medium to large vehicle class satellite launches. Orbital Sciences 

Corporation (OSC) of Virginia selected WFF, including the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), 

as its preferred site to develop and launch its Taurus II rocket. MARS is a Virginia and Maryland 

sponsored spaceport whose mission is to foster regional economic development through aerospace 

projects and commercial space launch operations conducted from their property on the WFF Research 

Range. According to NASA, OSC foresees an average of five MARS-associated launches a year 

beginning in 2011 using the Taurus II rocket. In addition, OSC has been selected by NASA to conduct

launches from WFF for ongoing commercial cargo re-supply services for the International Space Station. 

NASA will depend on commercial re-supply for reliable, safe and cost effective cargo delivery services to 

the station. The contract is for launch services, orbital rendezvous and berthing with a crewed spacecraft, 

delivery of internal and/or external cargo, unberthing and de-orbit, and disposal or return of internal cargo 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-45

for 2011 through 2016. Future planned flights from WFF also include NASA scientific satellites with a 

lunar reconnaissance mission in 2012, Lunar Atmospheric and Dust Experiment Explorer, as the first 

planned Expendable Launch Vehicle mission from WFF to support the Nation’s scientific program goals. 

The WFF tenants such as the Navy’s Surface Combat System Center and Naval Air Warfare CenterAircraft Division also rely on the WFF Research Range for aircraft and shipboard system development 

testing and training. The U.S. Air Force also relies on launches from WFF to support two critical 

programs: Operationally Responsive Space and the Tactical Satellite Program. Future missions in this 

program are on schedule for launch from WFF in 2011 and beyond. The Missile Defense Agency also 

relies on launches from WFF for suborbital targets to train the Navy fleet, and orbital technology 

development programs including Near Field Infrared Experiment.

Over the 2012-2020 time period of this Programmatic EIS, it is assumed that military and civilian 

space program uses of the AOI will increase above the present level due to the ongoing and planned 

programs discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Reasonably foreseeable IPFs associated with military 

uses include the following:

• vessel traffic, including associated effluent discharges, air emissions, and noise; 

• aircraft traffic, including associated air emissions and noise; 

• underwater noise from sonars, explosives, and other active acoustic sound sources;

• seafloor disturbance due to bottom-founded buoys, towers, or other equipment;

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris (including debris from rocket 

launches); and

• a risk of fuel spills from military and civilian vessels.

Guidance for Military Coordination

On February 1, 2013, BOEM met with representatives of the DoD to discuss pre-notification for 

BOEM-permitted G&G activities (oil and gas) or G&G activities authorized by an OCS plan or 

negotiated lease (renewable energy and marine minerals) within the AOI. The armed services expressed 

no fundamental objections with respect to the compatibility of the G&G activity required for oil and gas 

resource development on the OCS and the operations conducting by DoD within their Atlantic range 

complexes (Figure 4-37) (U.S. DoD, 2010). The proposed action at issue was limited to G&G activity 

and BOEM sought to acquaint DoD with the impacting factors for such activity and to discuss them in 

relation to DoD operations. In 2010 (U.S. DoD, 2010, Appendix 2) the DoD composed stipulations for 

an OCS lease sale in areas where DoD activities currently take place. Although an OCS lease sale is not 

part of the proposed action in this Programmatic EIS, BOEM accepts the coordination afforded by these 

stipulations and will adapt the proposed stipulations into conditions for approval for G&G permits or 

authorizations sought in the AOI. They are fundamentally similar to those used in the Gulf of Mexico for 

permitted activities or those authorized by OCS plans in NTL 2009-G06 (Military Warning and Water 

Test Areas).

Stipulation No. 1 - Evacuation

(a) The permittee or authorized operator, recognizing that oil and gas resource 

exploration, renewable energy development, or marine mineral development may 

occasionally interfere with military testing, training, and operations, hereby 

recognizes and agrees that the United States reserves and has the right to temporarily 

suspend operations and/or require evacuation of an area where BOEM permitted or 

authorized activities may be scheduled or underway in the interest of national 

security. Every effort will be made by the appropriate military agency to provide as 

much advance notice as possible of the need to suspend operations and/or evacuate. 

Advance notice of fourteen (14) days shall normally be given before requiring a 

suspension or evacuation, but in no event will the notice be less than four (4) days. 

Temporary suspension of operations may include the evacuation of personnel, and 

appropriate sheltering of personnel not evacuated. Appropriate shelter shall mean 

the protection of all personnel for the entire duration of any Department of 

Defense activity from flying or falling objects or substances and will be 
3-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

implemented by a written order from the BSEE Regional Supervisors, after 

consultation with the appropriate command headquarters or other appropriate 

military agency, or higher authority. The appropriate command headquarters, 

military agency or higher authority shall provide information to allow the lessee to 

assess the degree of risk to, and provide sufficient protection for, lessee's 

personnel and property. Such suspensions or evacuations for national security 

reasons will not normally exceed seventy-two (72) hours; however, any such 

suspension may be extended by order of BSEE. Upon cessation of any temporary 

suspension, the BSEE will immediately notify the lessee such suspension has 

terminated and operations on the permitted or authorized area can resume.

(b) The permittee or authorized operator shall inform the BSEE of the persons/offices to 

be notified to implement the terms of this stipulation.

(c) The permittee or authorized operator is encouraged to establish and maintain early 

contact and coordination with the appropriate command headquarters, in order to 

avoid or minimize the effects of conflicts with potentially hazardous military 

operations.

(d) The permittee or authorized operator shall not be entitled to reimbursement for any 

costs or expenses associated with the suspension of operations or activities or the 

evacuation of property or personnel in fulfillment of the military mission in 

accordance with subsections (a) through (c) above.

(e) Notwithstanding subsection (d), the permittee or authorized operator reserves the 

right to seek reimbursement from appropriate parties for the suspension of operations 

or activities or the evacuation of property or personnel associated with conflicting 

commercial operations.

Stipulation No. 2 - Coordination

(a) The placement, location, and planned periods of operation by the permittee or 

authorized operator are subject to approval by the BOEM Regional Director (RD) 

after the review of an operator's exploration plan (EP). Prior to approval of the 

permit or issuance of the authorization the operator shall consult with the 

appropriate command headquarters regarding the location, density, and the 

planned periods of operation to minimize conflicts with Department of Defense 

activities. When determined necessary by the appropriate command 

headquarters, the permittee will enter into a formal Operating Agreement with 

such command headquarters that delineates the specific requirements and 

operating parameters for a particular action. If it is determined that the Final 

operations will result in interference with scheduled military missions in such a 

manner as to possibly jeopardize the national defense or to pose unacceptable 

risks to life and property, then BOEM may approve the permit or issue the 

authorization with conditions, disapprove it, or require modification in 

accordance with 30 C.F.R. Part 550. The RD will notify the lessee in writing of 

the conditions associated with plan approval, or the reason(s) for disapproval or 

required modifications. Moreover, if there is a serious threat of harm or damage 

to life or property, or if it is in the interest of national security or defense, 

pending or approved operations may be suspended in accordance with 

30 C.F.R. 550. Such a suspension may extend the term of a permit by an amount 

equal to the length of the suspension, except as provided in 30 CFR 550.169(b), 

or BOEM may require a new permit or authorization to be issue to the operator. 

The BOEM RD will attempt to minimize such suspensions within the confine of 

related military requirements. 

(b) The permittee or authorized operator is encouraged to establish and maintain 

early contact and coordination with the appropriate command headquarters, in 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-47

order to avoid or minimize the effects of conflicts with potentially hazardous 

military operations.

(c) If national security interests are likely to be in continuing conflict with an 

existing operating agreement, the BOEM RD will direct the lessee to modify any 

existing operating agreement or to enter into a new operating agreement to 

implement measures to avoid or minimize the identified potential conflicts.

Stipulation No. 3 - Electromagnetic Emissions

The permittee or authorized operator agrees to control its own electromagnetic emissions 

and those of its agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or subcontractors 

emanating from individual designated defense operating areas, warning areas, and water 

test areas in accordance with requirements specified by the commander of the command 

headquarters (list applicable requirements in a table) to the degree necessary to prevent 

damage to, or unacceptable interference with, Department of Defense flight testing, 

training, or operational activities, conducted within individual designated defense 

operating areas, warning areas, and water test areas. Prior to entry into the particular 

operating area, warning area, or water test area, the permittee or authorized operator, its 

agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or subcontractors, must coordinate 

electromagnetic emissions with the appropriate command headquarters.

Guidance for NASA Coordination

BOEM and NASA have been engaged in ongoing coordination related to NASA’s concerns about 

mission compatibility with BOEM-managed activities. In particular NASA has been concerned about 

activities that have the potential to impact the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). NASA’s concerns about 

BOEM-managed activities on the sea surface in the Range Hazard Area fell into three categories: (1) risk 

to private or state investment and personnel from competing space-use in an active and hazardous rocket 

and target launch range; (2) impact of private or state investment that leads to unacceptable restrictions on 

NASA and DoD operations in order to meet safety requirements that will likely result in WFF no longer 

being one of the Nation’s few viable launch and test sites; and (3) adverse impacts on NASA’s 

partnership with the commercial space sector represented at WFF by the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Spaceport. 

NASA provided comments on the Atlantic G&G Draft Programmatic EIS. Those comments have 

been addressed and where appropriate incorporated into the Final Programmatic EIS as stipulations 

below. They can also be found in Appendix C 3.1.5. NASA’s recommendations for G&G activities 

occurring within the WFF Range and Hazard Area include (Figure 4-37): 

Stipulation No. 1 - Evacuation

(a) The permittee or authorized operator, recognizing that oil and gas resource 

exploration, renewable energy development, or marine mineral development may 

occasionally interfere with NASA testing and operations, hereby recognizes and 

agrees that the NASA reserves and has the right to temporarily suspend operations 

and/or require evacuation of an area where BOEM permitted or authorized activities 

may be scheduled or underway. Every effort will be made by the NASA to provide 

as much advance notice as possible of the need to suspend operations and/or 

evacuate. Advance notice of fourteen (14) days shall normally be given before 

requiring a suspension or evacuation, but in no event will the notice be less than four 

(4) days. Temporary suspension of operations may include the evacuation of 

personnel, and appropriate sheltering of personnel not evacuated. Appropriate shelter 

shall mean the protection of all personnel for the entire duration of any NASA 

activity from flying or falling objects or substances and will be implemented by 

written order from the BSEE Regional Supervisors, after consultation with NASA 

Safety Office Chief or higher authority. The NASA Safety Office Chief or higher 

authority shall provide information to allow the lessee to assess the degree of risk to, 
3-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

and provide sufficient protection for, lessee's personnel and property. Such 

suspensions or evacuations will not normally exceed twenty four (24) hours; 

however, any such suspension may be extended. Upon cessation of any temporary 

suspension, BSEE will immediately notify the lessee such suspension has terminated 

and operations on the permitted or authorized area can resume.

(b) The permittee or authorized operator shall inform BSEE of the persons/offices to be 

notified to implement the terms of this stipulation.

(c) The permittee or authorized operator is encouraged to establish and maintain early 

contact and coordination with the Wallops Test Director, in order to avoid or 

minimize the effects of conflicts with potentially hazardous NASA operations.

(d) The permittee or authorized operator shall not be entitled to reimbursement for any 

costs or expenses associated with the suspension of operations or activities or the 

evacuation of property or personnel in fulfillment of the NASA mission in 

accordance with subsections (a) through (c) above.

Stipulation No. 2 - Coordination

(a) The placement, location, and planned periods of operation by the permittee or 

authorized operator are subject to approval by the BOEM RD after the review of an 

operator's exploration plan (EP). Prior to approval of the permit or issuance of the 

authorization the operator shall consult with the Wallops Test Director regarding the 

location, density, and the planned periods of operation to minimize conflicts with 

NASA activities. When determined necessary by the Wallops Test Director, the 

permittee shall submit a formal Operating Plan to the Wallops Test Director. The 

Operating Plan shall delineate the specific requirements and operating parameters of 

the planned activities. If it is determined that the Final operations will result in 

interference with scheduled NASA missions in such a manner as to possibly 

jeopardize the NASA’s activities at the Wallops Range or to pose unacceptable risks 

to life and property, then BOEM may approve the permit or issue the authorization 

with conditions, disapprove it, or require modification in accordance with 

30 C.F.R. Part 550. The BOEM RD will notify the lessee in writing of the conditions 

associated with plan approval, or the reason(s) for disapproval or required 

modifications. Moreover, if there is a serious threat of harm or damage to life or 

property, or if it is in the interest of NASA, pending or approved operations may be 

suspended. Such a suspension may extend the term of a permit by an amount equal 

to the length of the suspension, or BOEM may require a new permit or authorization 

to be issue to the operator. The BOEM RD will attempt to minimize such 

suspensions.

(b) The permittee or authorized operator is encouraged to establish and maintain early 

contact and coordination with the Wallops Test Director, in order to avoid or 

minimize the effects of conflicts with potentially hazardous NASA operations.

(c) If national security interests are likely to be in continuing conflict with an existing 

operating agreement, the BOEM RD will direct the permittee or authorized operator 

into a new operating agreement to implement measures to avoid or minimize the 

effects of conflicts with potentially hazardous NASA operations.

Stipulation No. 3 - Electromagnetic Emissions

The permittee or authorized operator agrees to control its own electromagnetic emissions 

and those of its agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or subcontractors 

emanating from individual designated operating areas, warning areas, and water test areas 

in accordance with requirements specified by the Wallops Frequency Manager to the 

degree necessary to prevent damage to, or unacceptable interference with, Wallops 

(including NASA and Tenant) flight testing, training, or operational activities, conducted 
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-49

within individual designated operating areas, warning areas, and water test areas. Prior to 

entry into the particular operating area, warning area, or water test area, the permittee or 

authorized operator, its agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or 

subcontractors, must coordinate electromagnetic emissions with the Wallops Frequency 

Manager.

BOEM will continue to coordinate with NASA to help ensure future spatial use conflicts are avoided.

3.6.8. Shipping and Marine Transportation

Shipping and marine transportation in the AOI are discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.1. Deepwater

commercial ports located along the coast adjacent to the AOI include Norfolk, Virginia (Port of Virginia); 

Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Brunswick, Georgia; and 

Jacksonville, Florida. In addition, Delaware Bay provides access to Delaware River ports and terminals 

in the Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area and provides access to the Port of 

Baltimore via the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Chesapeake Bay provides access to the Port of 

Baltimore and numerous smaller ports in Maryland and Virginia.

Large commercial vessels (cargo ships, tankers, and container ships) use these ports to access 

overland rail and road routes to transport goods throughout the U.S. More than 54,000 vessel transits 

(involving commercial vessels of at least 150 gross registered tons [GRT]) occur at U.S. east coast ports 

per year, a significant proportion of which either use ports of the AOI or may traverse waters of the AOI 

during inbound or outbound transit. Other vessels using these ports include military vessels, commercial 

business craft (tug boats, fishing vessels, and ferries), commercial recreational craft (cruise ships and 

fishing/sight-seeing/diving charters), research vessels, and personal craft (fishing boats, houseboats, 

yachts and sailboats, and other pleasure craft).

Over the 2012-2020 time period of this Programmatic EIS, it is assumed that shipping and marine 

transportation activities in the AOI will increase above the present level, due in part to the expansion of 

the Panama Canal, which is expected to be complete in 2014 and which will double its capacity (Canal de 

Panamá, 2012). Reasonably foreseeable IPFs associated with these activities include

• vessel traffic, including associated effluent discharges, air emissions, and noise; 

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris; and

• a risk of fuel spills from commercial vessels.

3.6.9. Dredged Material Disposal

Dredged material disposal sites in the AOI are discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.5. There are 

13 designated dredged material disposal sites on the Atlantic OCS ranging from Dam Neck, Virginia, to 

Canaveral Harbor, Florida. The disposal sites are used only for the disposal of dredged material from the 

maintenance dredging of commercial ports. Typically, sites are permitted for continuing use, and the 

activity level varies depending on the dredging requirements for particular ports. Over the 2012-2020 

time period of this Programmatic EIS, it is assumed that usage of dredged material disposal sites in the 

AOI will continue at about the present level. Reasonably foreseeable IPFs associated with this usage 

include

• seafloor disturbance, turbidity, and benthic habitat alterations due to dredging (at the 

port or channel location) and dumping of dredged material (at the disposal site);

• a risk of direct physical impacts to sea turtles (e.g., by hopper dredges at the port or 

channel location); 

• vessel traffic and associated effluent discharges, air emissions, and noise; 

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris; and

• a risk of fuel spills from dredging vessels.
3-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.6.10. Climate Change

Warming of the earth’s climate system is occurring, and most of the observed increases in global 

average temperatures since the mid-20th century are very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007; 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). Globally, many environmental effects have been 

documented, including widespread changes in snow melt and ice extent; spatial changes in precipitation 

patterns; changes in the frequency of extreme weather events; changes in stream flow and runoff patterns 

in snow-fed rivers; warming of lakes and rivers, with effects on thermal structure and water quality; 

changes in the timing of spring events such as bird migration and egg-laying; poleward shifts in ranges of 

plant and animal species; and acidification of marine environments (Orr et al., 2005; IPCC, 2007; 

Nye et al., 2009). Documented changes in marine and freshwater biological systems are associated with 

rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels, and circulation. 

These include shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance in high-latitude oceans; 

increases in algal and zooplankton abundance in high-latitude and high-altitude lakes; and range changes 

and earlier fish migrations in rivers (IPCC, 2007). In addition, there is evidence that suggests organisms 

are very sensitive to temperature changes and the associated impacts from climate change are more 

prevalent along ecosystem boundaries. This is especially true in some marine environments where in 

certain areas a small increase in temperature can result in abrupt ecosystem shifts across multiple trophic 

levels (Beargrand et al., 2008). Beaugrand (2009) suggests that there may be strong interactions between 

trophic levels within the ecosystem due to temperature changes.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009) has summarized regional climate changes for the 

southeastern U.S. (including most of the states in the AOI). Since 1970, average annual temperature has 

risen approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1.1 degrees Celsius [°C]) and the number of freezing days 

has declined by 4-7 days per year. Average autumn precipitation has increased 30 percent since 1901. 

There has been an increase in heavy downpours in many parts of the region, while the percentage of the 

region experiencing moderate to severe drought increased over the past three decades. The area of 

moderate to severe spring and summer drought has increased by 12 and 14 percent, respectively, since the 

mid-1970’s. Continuing changes in precipitation could affect the water quality and marine ecology of the 

AOI by altering the quantity and quality of runoff into estuaries.

Over the next century, the IPCC (2007) projects that global temperature increases will cause 

significant global environmental changes, including reductions in snow cover and sea ice; more frequent 

extreme heat waves and heavy precipitation events; an increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones 

(hurricanes and typhoons); and numerous hydrological, ecological, social, and health effects. Regionally, 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009) predicts similar long-term changes for the southeastern 

U.S., including increased shoreline erosion due to sea level rise and increases in hurricane intensity; a 

precipitous decline in wetland-dependent fish and shellfish populations due to loss of coastal marshes; 

heat-related stresses for people, plants, and animals; and decreased water availability due to increased 

temperature and longer time between rainfall events. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be 

exceeded by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances, and other global 

change drivers. There are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ 

ecological interactions, and shifts in species’ geographical ranges, with predominantly negative 

consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem function (IPCC, 2007). 

Reasonably foreseeable marine environmental changes in the AOI that could result from climate 

change over the next century include altered migratory routes and timing (e.g., for marine mammals and 

migratory birds); changes in shoreline configuration that could adversely affect sea turtle and shorebird 

and seabird nesting beaches and prompt increased levels of beach restoration activity (and increased use 

of OCS sand sources); changes in estuaries and coastal habitats due to interactive effects of climate 

change along with development and pollution; and impacts on calcification in plankton, corals, 

crustaceans, and other marine organisms due to ocean acidification (The Royal Society, 2005).

Over the next two decades, the IPCC (2007) projected a warming of about 0.2 °C per decade. During

the 10-year time period of this Programmatic EIS (2012-2020), environmental changes in the AOI due to 

climate change are likely to be small, incremental, and difficult to discern from effects of other natural 

and anthropogenic factors.
G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario 3-51

3.6.11. Cumulative Noise in the Sea

Various activities and processes, both natural and anthropogenic, combine to form the sound profile 

within the ocean, generally referred to as ambient (background) ocean noise (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Hildebrand, 2009). Most ambient noise is broadband (composed of a spectrum of numerous frequencies 

without a differentiating pitch) and encompasses virtually the entire frequency spectrum. For purposes of 

understanding the sources and characteristics of ocean ambient noise, it can be divided into three

frequency bands: low (10-500 Hz); medium (500 Hz-25 kHz); and high (>25 kHz) (Hildebrand, 2009). 

Shipping noise is the main contributor to ambient ocean noise in the low-frequency band (NRC, 2003a; 

Hildebrand, 2009). Noise in the low-frequency band has a broad maximum around 10-80 Hz, with a 

steep negative slope above 80 Hz. According to ambient noise spectra presented by Hildebrand (2009), 

spectrum levels of ambient noise from shipping are 60-90 dB re 1 μPa2 Hz-1. Sea surface agitation 

correlated with wind and sea state is the major contributions to ambient noise in the medium frequency 

band. In the high-frequency band, “thermal noise” caused by the random motion of water molecules is 

the primary source (Hildebrand, 2009). Ambient noise sources, especially noise from wave and tidal 

action, can cause coastal environments to have particularly high ambient noise levels.

A large portion of the noise from vessel traffic comes from vessel engines and propellers, and those 

sounds occupy the low frequency bands in which most large whales calls and songs occur

(Richardson et al., 1995). In the open water, ship traffic can influence ambient background noise at 

distances of thousands of kilometers; however, the effects of ship traffic sounds in shallow coastal waters

are much less far reaching, most likely because a large portion of the sound’s intensity is absorbed by 

soft, nonreflective, unconsolidated materials (sands and mud) on the seafloor. Other anthropogenic 

sources include dredging, oil and gas operations, nearshore construction activities, recreational vessels, 

geophysical research operations, and military preparedness exercises (e.g., sonar signals).

Behavioral responses of marine mammals to underwater noise and the population consequences of 

those responses are subjects of recent and ongoing research and include several important areas of 

concern (NRC, 2005; Southall et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2009; Ellison et al., 2011). The increased noise 

may be steadily eroding marine mammals’ abilities to communicate, degrading their acoustic habitat. A 

common theme is the recognition that evaluations of biological impact cannot be constrained to the 

present dose-response or step function paradigms, which only pertains to acute, short-term, small-scale 

contexts, and must be expanded to include auditory (e.g., different weighting functions for different 

groups of marine mammals); contextual (e.g., migrating, mating, foraging); and chronic (e.g., long-term, 

large-scale) factors. This additional perspective on acoustic impacts takes into consideration the effects 

from chronic, cumulative increases in noise and the hypothesis that chronic noise may be steadily eroding 

marine mammal acoustic environments by reducing a population’s access to its typical acoustic habitat. 

Long-term data from offshore of California analyzed by McDonald et al. (2006) show an increase in 

ambient noise of approximately 10-12 dB in the 30-50 Hz frequency range over a 40-year period, 

suggesting an average noise increase rate of 2.5-3 dB per decade. The authors attributed the change to 

increased levels of shipping traffic. In the Western North Atlantic, relative to calling right whales 

(71-224 Hz), Hatch et al. (2012) made a conservative assumption of a 10-dB increase in ambient noise

over a 40-year period. Anthropogenic noise is an important environmental stressor, chronic and frequent 

noise interferes with animals’ abilities to detect important sounds (Francis and Barber, 2013). Clark et al. 

(2009) stated, “It is likely that acoustic masking by anthropogenic sounds is having an increasingly 

prevalent impact on animals’ access to acoustic information that is essential for communication and other 

important activities such as navigation and prey/predator detection. Increasing anthropogenic sound 

creates loss of communication space,” preventing marine life from using their primary modality for 

experiencing their surroundings (Gedamke et al., 2008). Gedamke et al. (2008) observed that after 

traveling long distances, the impulsive characteristics of air guns loses that characteristic and eventually 

becomes constant or non-impulsive. This has led to a loss of access of acoustic habitat.

Bioacousticians have estimated that in some cases the chance of two whales hearing each other has 

been reduced to 10 percent of what it was 100 years ago due to the masking of communication sounds by 

the cumulative noise created by multiple ships (Parks and Clark, 2007). The concern is that at some point 

this acoustic “smog” (Clark et al., 2007) could affect the abilities of whales to successfully engage in 

critical life functions such as communicating, finding food, mating, and navigating. Recent calculations 

indicate that NARWs off Boston, Massachusetts, lose on average over 60 percent of their opportunities to 

communicate as a result of commercial shipping traffic (Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 2012). Because 
3-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

the bulk of human industrial sounds in the oceans have the majority of their energy in the low-frequency

band (<1,000 Hz), cumulative, low-frequency noise from multiple anthropogenic activities has its greatest 

potential effect through its chronic influence on basic life functions of mysticete whales. The majority of 

soniferous fishes are also adapted to perceive and produce sounds in the low-frequency band, and 

likewise, increased background noise could interfere with basic life functions such as foraging, predator 

detection, and reproduction (Vasconcelos et al., 2007; Codarin et al., 2009).

Relative to seismic exploration, scientists have also begun to quantify and evaluate the potential for 

larger-scale and longer-term influences of noise from seismic airgun array activities on the ocean’s 

acoustic environment (Clark et al., 2009). This is in contrast to the majority of efforts, which have 

focused only on short-term, small-scale impacts, such as Controlled Exposure Experiments: that is, the 

possibility of temporary hearing loss as a result of exposures within the immediate area around the 

seismic vessel (500-1,000 m; 1,640-3,281 ft) and the received level of the seismic impulse (approximately

100 milliseconds; see Madsen et al., 2006). In contrast, acoustic measurements made at greater ranges, 

over the entire duration of a seismic survey and including the time periods between the impulses indicate 

elevated background levels of 20-35 dB out to distances of hundreds of nautical miles, and in temperate, 

open ocean regions as great as approximately 1,500 nmi (2,778 km) (Nieukirk et al., 2004, 2012). 

Several other particularly important results emerge from noise analysis of seismic impulses at long 

distances from the source vessel. These include observations that under certain environmental conditions 

the initial impulse is transformed from a broadband impulse into a frequency-modulated tone and that the 

entire time gap between impulses, in which one might expect levels to be at ambient, are elevated by 

20-35 dB above ambient as a result reverberation and reflections (Guerra et al., 2011). The potential 

biological and physiological result from the changing soundscape may vary by sound, species, and 

particular animal, but it would require prediction of which combination of noise characteristics and 

behavioral contexts are most detrimental and under what circumstances behavioral changes affect fitness 

directly or indirectly (Francis and Barber, 2013).

3.6.12. New Cable Infrastructure

The Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas contain significant existing undersea cable 

infrastructure, which is discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.8. However, with the continued need for 

additional bandwidth to provide reliable high speed connectivity, it is expected that additional cables and 

infrastructure will be constructed in the AOI within the timeframe analyzed in this Programmatic EIS

(2012-2020). Reasonably foreseeable IPFs associated with the installation of this additional cable 

infrastructure include

• vessel traffic, including associated effluent discharges, air emissions, and noise; 

• seafloor disturbance, turbidity, and benthic habitat alterations due to cable burial;

• accidental releases of trash and marine debris; and

• a risk of fuel spills from installation vessels.

3.6.13. Cumulative Vessel Activity Levels

Based on the maritime uses of Atlantic waters, particularly those of the AOI, as described previously 

in Chapter 3.6, the predominant sources of vessel activity in the AOI during the 2012-2020 timeframe 

will include shipping and maritime transportation and Navy surface and subsurface vessel operations (i.e.,

exercises, training, testing), with contributions from other activities (e.g., marine minerals use, 

geosequestration, LNG tanker traffic, commercial and recreational fishing, dredged material disposal). 

Table 3-13 summarizes estimates of vessel activity within and adjacent to the AOI, addressing various 

G&G vessel-based activities, shipping and maritime transport, and U.S. Navy vessel exercises, training, 

and testing. The table provides an approximation of vessel activity. It assumes average annual G&G 

vessel activity, based on total vessel operations over the 2012-2020 timeframe. On an annual basis, and 

considering just three vessel activity sources, G&G vessel-based operations represent a small percentage 

(i.e., 1.5-2.9%) of the projected vessel activity in the AOI.
CHAPTER 4 

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED RESOURCES 

AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-3

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED RESOURCES AND IMPACT 

ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Within the AOI, various types of G&G activities may be conducted in support of three broad 

categories of offshore energy and minerals development under BOEM jurisdiction:

• Oil and Gas Exploration: The G&G surveys are conducted to locate and evaluate 

oil and gas resources, primarily through broad scale 2D and 3D seismic exploration

surveys. In addition, high-resolution site surveys of individual lease blocks are 

conducted to detect geohazards, shipwrecks and other archaeological resources, and 

certain types of benthic communities. 

• Renewable Energy Development: The G&G surveys in support of renewable 

energy development are likely to include high-resolution surveys of wind facility 

locations as well as cable routes to shore. The surveys are conducted to aid in siting 

facilities as well as to detect geohazards, shipwrecks and other archaeological

resources, and certain types of benthic communities. 

• Marine Minerals: The G&G surveys are used to locate and evaluate marine mineral

deposits, including sand for beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects. 

A detailed summary of G&G activities, including the projected activity scenario (for each of the three 

offshore programs; e.g., number of line miles of seismic airgun surveys, including airgun and 

electromechanical sources; number of core samples) is presented in Chapter 3. 

4.1.1. Preliminary Screening of Activities and Affected Resources

Earlier environmental analyses were reviewed to determine the physical, chemical, biological, and 

socioeconomic resources that should be considered in the current programmatic baseline characterization 

and impact analysis covering Atlantic G&G activities during the 2012-2020 time period. Previous 

environmental assessments included the Programmatic EA for G&G activities in the Gulf of Mexico 

(USDOI, MMS, 2004) and the draft EA of wind energy on the Atlantic OCS (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011a), 

as well as a series of applicable EISs covering both oil and gas and renewable energy activities 

(e.g., USDOI, MMS, 2007c, 2008b; NSF and USDOI, USGS, 2011; USDOI, BOEM, 2012d). The 

following 17 resource categories were identified for consideration within the current impact analysis:

• benthic communities; 

• marine mammals; 

• sea turtles; 

• marine and coastal birds; 

• fisheries resources and EFH; 

• threatened and endangered fishes; 

• commercial fisheries; 

• recreational fisheries; 

• recreational resources; 

• archaeological resources; 

• MPAs; 

• other marine uses;

• human resources and land use; 

• geology/sediments;

• air and water quality; 

• physical oceanography; and

• meteorology. 
4-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Preliminary screening was conducted to identify those resources at risk of impact from the suite of 

proposed or anticipated G&G activities. Screening allows for the elimination from a detailed impact 

analysis of those resources with no potential for adverse or significant impact, and focuses the analysis on 

those resources at greatest impact risk.

The initial step in the preliminary screening was to briefly identify and characterize G&G activities 

expected to occur in the AOI (i.e., including activities expected under the oil and gas, renewable energy, 

and marine minerals programs), focusing on activity-specific IPFs. The IPFs identified in this analysis 

included (1) active acoustic sound sources (i.e., airguns, subbottom profilers, side-scan sonar, etc.); 

(2) vessel and equipment noise; (3) vessel traffic; (4) aircraft traffic and noise; (5) vessel exclusion zones; 

(6) vessel wastes; (7) trash and debris; (8) seafloor disturbance; (9) drilling discharges; and (10) onshore 

support activities. Potential accidents were also integrated into the preliminary screening in the form of a 

diesel fuel spill resulting from a vessel collision. 

The G&G activity types and IPFs were formulated into a matrix (Table 4-1). A second matrix, the 

Leopold Matrix, was subsequently developed to identify resources potentially affected by each type of 

G&G activity (Table 4-2). In this preliminary analysis, the level of impact associated with each 

interaction was categorized as potential impact for analysis (e.g., a measurable impact to a resource is 

predicted), or no impact expected (i.e., no measurable impact to a resource evident).

4.1.1.1. Activity Screening

Based on the preliminary screening of G&G activities and identifiable IPFs (Table 4-2), no activities 

were eliminated from detailed impact analysis under Alternative A with the exception of radar imaging 

using satellites, which does not require BOEM permit review and issuance. During the preliminary 

screening, the vessel waste IPF was determined to result in no impact expected and therefore was not 

carried forward to the impact analysis. All G&G activities evaluated under Alternative A were expected 

to produce some level of impact to AOI resources, although more than 60 percent of the possible impacts 

fell within the “no impact” category (Table 4-2). 

Alternatives B and C were also evaluated in the impact analysis, although a comprehensive activity 

screening was not conducted for these alternatives because these alternatives constitute a reduced level of 

G&G activity compared to Alternative A. Alternative B reflects additional activity restrictions on G&G 

activities, as described in Chapter 2.2. Alternative C reflects the no action for oil and gas and status quo 

for renewable energy and marine minerals G&G activity, as described in Chapter 2.3. 

4.1.1.2. Resource Screening

Several resource areas were identified as having no expected impacts from G&G activities, including

the following: 

• Geology/Sediments: Those G&G activities that have the potential to affect 

sediments include deep stratigraphic and shallow test drilling, controlled source 

electromagnetic (CSEM) and magnetotelluric (MT) anchors, ocean bottom seismic

receivers, and bottom sampling. Because of the nature of these sampling activities, 

only very minor impacts to ambient sediments are expected as a result of well 

drilling, coring, grab sampling, anchor deployment for CSEM and MT surveys, nodal 

or ocean bottom cable deployment, and penetrometer tests, including the creation of 

small areas of surficial sediment disturbance, localized sediment resuspension and 

redeposition, and creation of minor surficial discontinuities. Further, deep 

stratigraphic and shallow test drilling and bottom sampling would have no effect on 

local or regional geology.

• Air and Water Quality: Survey vessels, aircraft, machinery, and equipment 

involved in G&G activities would emit a variety of air pollutants including nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), particulate matter, volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., CO2). Survey 

vessels would also discharge treated sanitary and domestic wastes from 

USCG-approved MSDs. Potential impacts from emissions and discharges on water 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-5

quality are expected to be negligible. Potential impacts from emissions on air quality

are discussed further in Appendix F and are expected to be negligible.

• Physical Oceanography: The G&G activities to be conducted from a survey vessel 

or floating platform would necessarily account for local and regional physical 

oceanographic conditions. Ocean current characteristics, water column density 

stratification, and vertical current structure, among other factors, would be considered 

during planning, operation, and data post-processing of G&G survey or sampling 

efforts. Physical oceanographic resources would not be affected by G&G activities 

and associated discharges; no impacts to physical oceanography are expected.

• Meteorology: Meteorological parameters (e.g., temperature, humidity, wind speed 

and direction, and seasonal storm activity) would be taken into consideration during 

planning and operation of G&G activities, including both vessel-based and aircraft 

survey operations. Meteorological resources would not be affected by G&G 

activities; no impacts to meteorology are expected.

A total of 13 resource categories was carried forward for detailed baseline environment 

characterization and impact analysis, including benthic communities (soft bottom, hard/live 

bottom/coral/chemosynthetic), marine mammals, sea turtles, marine and coastal birds, fish resources and 

EFH, endangered and threatened fishes, commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, recreational 

resources, archaeological resources, MPAs, other marine uses, and human resources and land use. 

4.1.2. Impact Levels and Impact Significance Criteria

Broad significance criteria were developed for each of the biological and socioeconomic resources 

present in the AOI, based on the results of the resource screening (Chapter 4.1.1.2) and in consideration 

of recent environmental impact analyses and their respective impact descriptions. Criteria reflect 

consideration of both the context and intensity of 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). While the impact descriptions 

developed for this analysis are unique, the impact thresholds employed and impacts determined in earlier 

EISs, including the Alternative Energy Programmatic EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007a) and the NSF-USGS 

Marine Seismic Research Programmatic EIS/OEIS (NSF and USDOI, USGS, 2011), have been 

considered. For the purposes of this analysis, negative impacts have been classified into one of four 

levels – negligible, minor, moderate, or major. For both biological and socioeconomic resources, the 

significance criteria have been broadly defined as follows:

• Negligible: Little or no measurable/detectable impact. 

• Minor: Impacts are detectable, short-term, extensive or localized, but less than 

severe.

• Moderate: Impacts are detectable, short-term, extensive, and severe; or impacts are 

detectable, short-term or long-lasting, localized, and severe; or impacts are 

detectable, long-lasting, extensive or localized, but less than severe.

• Major: Impacts are detectable, long-lasting, extensive, and severe.

While broad significance criteria are outlined above, each impact parameter was evaluated on a 

resource-specific basis to determine the appropriate impact level for each IPF. These evaluations 

considered the unique attributes of the resource being evaluated. For biological resources, attributes such 

as distribution/range, life history, and susceptibility to impact of individual and populations were 

considered, among other factors. For socioeconomic resources, attributes such as archaeological or 

socioeconomic characteristics and susceptibility to impact were evaluated, among other factors.

The evaluation process to determine significance considered potential impacts by context (e.g.,

short- vs. long-term) and intensity (e.g., severity) following the NEPA regulations as guidance (40 CFR § 

1508.27). Each type of IPF was evaluated not only according to context and intensity but also for 

duration and likelihood. Context was defined as the extent of the effect (geographic extent or extent 

within a species, ecosystem, or region) and any special circumstances (e.g., endangered species or legal 
4-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

status), while intensity of an impact was defined as its magnitude and duration. Moreover, the potential 

effect was evaluated in terms of duration or frequency (short-term, long-term, and intermittent). The 

evaluation process also consisted of evaluating the likelihood (likely or not likely) of an effect to occur, 

i.e., whether it was plausible or just speculative. During the preparation of the analysis of impacts, each 

application of an impact level was accompanied by a statement or statements explaining how the 

judgment was reached. Data or information from referenced journals used to support each determination 

is cited, as applicable. Otherwise, the determinations are based on the best available information.

4.1.3. Impact-Producing Factors

Table 4-3 outlines the IPFs identified in association with G&G activities. Chapter 3 outlined the 

specific details of each IPF.

Overall, the impact analyses considered direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative effects. Direct 

effects were defined as effects that may be caused by the proposed action and occur at the identical 

location and time of the action (40 CFR § 1508.8). Indirect effects were defined as effects that may be 

caused by the proposed action at a later time or farther removed from the location of the action but are 

still reasonably foreseeable to occur (40 CFR § 1508.8). Cumulative effects were defined as additive, 

interactive, or synergistic effects that would result from the incremental impact of the proposed action 

when compared or added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR § 1508.7 and CEQ, 1997a). Cumulative 

impacts, or the accumulation of effects, can result from one or more processes. These processes, as 

outlined by NRC (2003b), include the following: 

1. frequent and repeated impacts on a single environmental resource (i.e., time 

crowding);

2. high density impacts on a single environmental resource (i.e., space crowding);

3. synergistic impacts attributable to multiple sources on a single environmental 

resource (i.e., compounding impacts);

4. impacts that become qualitatively different once a resource-specific threshold of 

disturbance has been reached or surpassed (i.e., thresholds); and

5. the progressive loss of habitat resulting from a sequence of activities, each of which 

has relatively innocuous consequences however the environmental consequences 

accumulate (i.e., “nibbling”). Cumulative impacts characterized in the following 

analysis consider the incremental increase of each IPF associated with G&G

activities, as well as the additive, interactive, or synergistic effects that might result.

4.1.4. Other Considerations

4.1.4.1. Analysis and Incomplete or Unavailable Information

The analyses of potential effects on the wide variety of biological and socioeconomic resources in the 

vast area of the Mid- and South Atlantic and adjacent coastal areas are very complex. Specialized 

education, experience, and technical knowledge are required, as well as familiarity with the numerous 

IPFs associated with G&G activities at sea that can cause cumulative impacts in the area. Knowledge and 

practical working experience with major environmental laws and regulations such as NEPA, the CWA, 

CAA, CZMA, ESA, MMPA, Magnuson-Stevens FCMA, and others is also required.

When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the environment 

in an EIS and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency reports that such information is 

lacking. Under NEPA regulations at 40 CFR § 1502.22, the agency is required to report what relevant 

information is incomplete and why it is unavailable; either there is no relevant agency or public domain 

information at hand, cost or time limitations would be exorbitant to produce it, or a means to acquire it is 

not known. Complex environmental evaluations are always to some degree a documentation exercise in 

the face of imperfect information.

This chapter has thoroughly examined the existing, credible scientific evidence that is relevant to 

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable, significant adverse impacts of the proposed G&G activities. The 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-7

subject-matter experts that prepared this Programmatic EIS conducted a diligent search for pertinent 

information with which to assess impacts including information in Appendices D, E, H, I, and J. All 

reasonably foreseeable impacts have been considered, and the characterization of impact magnitude and 

duration is supported by credible scientific evidence. BOEM’s assessment of impacts is not based on 

conjecture, media reports, or public perception, rather it is based on theoretical approaches, research 

methods, and modeling applications generally accepted in the scientific community and that are even in 

the vanguard for assessing these types of impacts.

4.1.4.2. Space-Use Conflicts 

Marine space-use issues are a continuing problem and are an important element in marine spatial 

planning (Crowder and Norse, 2008; Douvere and Ehler, 2009). Whenever activities take place on the 

OCS, there is the potential for space-use conflict that must be evaluated prior to conducting regulated 

activities. The cumulative impacts scenario discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: 

1. oil and gas development;

2. renewable energy development;

3. marine minerals use;

4. geosequestration;

5. LNG terminals;

6. commercial and recreational fishing; 

7. military range complexes and civilian space program use; 

8. shipping and marine transportation; 

9. dredged material disposal; and

10. new cable infrastructure. 

Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative 

noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. Most of the activities are competing for very small 

footprints on the OCS; only a few of them permanently or temporarily compete directly for large areas of 

OCS on a semi-continuous basis. These exceptions include (1) military range complexes and civilian 

space program use, (2) commercial fishing, and less importantly (3) shipping and marine transportation. 

All of these activities spatially coexist with other activities on the OCS, but differ in their potential for 

space-use conflict by their degree of permanence or frequency. 

Military and NASA activities have the potential for creating temporary space-use conflicts on the 

OCS. The AOI includes all or parts of five major DoD range complexes that include periodic vessel 

access restrictions to portions each range complex. NASA also has designated downrange danger zones 

and restricted areas for rocket testing, satellite launches, and other range mission activities. NASA 

restricted areas within the AOI include Wallops Island in Virginia and offshore of the Kennedy Space 

Center at Cape Canaveral.

In the Gulf of Mexico, an area heavily leased for oil and gas activity, a Military Areas Stipulation is 

required for leased OCS lands that specify points of contact between industry operators and DoD facility 

operators to reduce potential impacts, particularly in regards to safety. Military and all other Gulf of 

Mexico activities essentially coexist except under prearranged circumstances. The reduction in potential 

impacts resulting from this stipulation makes multiple-use conflicts most unlikely, but without it some 

potential conflict with respect to safety issues is likely. The best indicator of the overall effectiveness of 

the stipulation may be that there has never been an accident involving a conflict between military 

operations and oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. Similar stipulations would be included in 

leased OCS lands within the AOI to reduce the potential for conflicts. In addition, conditions of permit 

approval requiring military coordination (i.e., similar to NTL 2009-G06, the military coordination lease 

stipulation in effect in the Gulf of Mexico) would be assigned (Chapter 2.1.2.5). The conditions would 

require the G&G operator to contact designated DoD or NASA personnel identified for the purpose to be 
4-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

notified of the nature and schedule for any pending G&G activity planned within military range 

complexes or NASA’s use areas.

Commercial fishing has the potential to cause semi-permanent, space-use conflicts on the OCS. 

Marine space conflicts are already an issue between many competing fisheries in some portions of the 

AOI (e.g., pelagic longline fisheries; deepwater crab fisheries). On a space use basis, commercial fishing 

can potentially occur anywhere in favored areas where it is not temporarily or permanently excluded (i.e.,

in areas where there are no surface or bottom obstructions). Virtually all commercial trawl fishing is 

performed in water depths less than 200 m (656 ft). Almost no OCS surface area is now obstructed, the 

exception being the South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore Observational Network (SABSOON) tower 

network offshore of the Georgia coast and small patches of sea bottom area obstructed by artificial reefs, 

aids to navigation, and known obstructions in NOAA’s Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information 

System (AWOIS) database. Together, a very small fraction of 1 percent of total OCS area in the AOI is 

now unavailable for trawl or longline fishing, and the introduction of surface and bottom obstructions 

from oil and gas or renewable energy structures from the cumulative impacts scenario would not be 

greater than 1 percent of the available surface or bottom area in the AOI in water <200 m (656 ft) deep.

Marine transportation presents a transitory but persistent potential for space-use conflicts over the 

OCS. Commercial vessels can range across the entire OCS, but higher traffic areas are generally 

self-restricted to transit corridors as discussed further in Chapter 4.2.12. 

Marine Planning is a key factor in reducing space-use conflicts. Marine Planning is “a 

comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on 

sound science for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas” 

(EO No. 13547; Federal Register, 2010b). Marine Planning aims to reduce conflict among uses, reduce 

environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services. BOEM is 

implementing Marine Planning as the planning tool to achieve National Ocean Policy objectives. Marine 

Planning will provide a framework for the coordinated application of existing laws and agency 

authorities. BOEM is using a phased implementation approach to Marine Planning that includes 

engaging State, Tribal, Federal, and public stakeholders and technical experts; consultation with regional 

Fishery Management Councils (FMCs); drafting of Strategic Action Plans; and development of a data 

portal for all applicable Federal data access and sharing. Space-use conflicts for each applicable resource 

category have been addressed within individual impact discussions, identified within those IPFs 

associated with the presence of structures, vessel traffic, and vessel exclusion zones. The analyses 

include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to each resource category.

4.2. ALTERNATIVE A – THE PROPOSED ACTION

The AOI for the proposed action (Figure 4-1) includes U.S. Atlantic waters from the mouth of 

Delaware Bay to just south of Cape Canaveral, Florida, and from the shoreline (excluding estuaries) to 

350 nmi (648 km) from shore. It includes a portion of the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB), which extends

from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and all of the South Atlantic Bight (SAB), which 

extends from Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral, Florida.

The northern (38°51' N) and southern (28° N) limits are based on the boundaries of the Mid- and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas. The seaward limit of 350 nmi (648 km) from shore is based on the 

maximum constraint line for the U.S. ECS under Article 76 of the UNCLOS (U.S. ECS Task Force, 

2010). Along most of the Atlantic Coast where the shoreline consists of barrier islands and beaches, the 

shoreward boundary is the MHW line. A straight line was drawn across inlets and the mouths of estuaries 

and embayments. Water depth within the AOI ranges from 0 to 5,629 m (0 to 18,468 ft). 

The total size of the AOI is 854,779 km2

 (330,032 mi2). The two largest components are the 

Mid-Atlantic Planning Area (456,818 km2

 or 176,378 mi2) and the South Atlantic Planning Area 

(219,890 km2

 or 84,900 mi2). Together these account for 79 percent of the AOI. State jurisdiction on the 

Atlantic Coast extends from the shoreline to 3 nmi (5.6 km) from shore. State waters constitute an area of 

9,174 km2

 (3,452 mi2), or about 1 percent of the AOI. Waters beyond the outer boundaries of the two 

planning areas represent an area of 168,898 km2

 (65,211 mi2), or 20 percent of the AOI. 

Potentially affected resources vary to some extent for different G&G program areas. The G&G

activities in support of oil and gas exploration and development are expected to occur only in the two 

planning areas under USDOI jurisdiction; as noted above, these account for 79 percent of the AOI. The 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-9

G&G activities in support of renewable energy development are expected to occur within both Federal 

and State waters less than 40 m (131 ft) deep (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). This represents an area of 

103,982 km2

 (40,148 mi2), or about 12 percent of the AOI. The G&G activities in support of marine 

minerals use (e.g., sand and gravel mining) are expected to occur in both Federal and State waters less 

than 30 m (98 ft) deep, which represents an area of 76,330 km2 (29,471 mi2

), or about 9 percent of the 

AOI. The G&G activities beyond the outer boundary of the planning areas have not been determined but 

could include geophysical surveys in support of the U.S. ECS Project.

Although the MHW line is the shoreward boundary, there are no G&G activities planned in the 

intertidal zone under this program. The intertidal zone is relevant only to the extent that resources within 

the AOI use it (e.g., sea turtle nesting beaches). A similar approach applies to estuaries, embayments, and 

coastal habitats in general, which are not within the AOI but are relevant to the ecology of many marine 

species. Where needed to evaluate the resource and potential impacts, the description of affected 

resources includes migration pathways and life stages that extend beyond the AOI boundaries.

In addition to the marine environment of the AOI, the analysis includes the human resources and land 

use in and around five ports identified as likely shore bases for G&G activities. These are Norfolk, 

Virginia (Port of Virginia); Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; 

and Jacksonville, Florida (Figure 4-1). The ports were selected based on their geographic proximity to 

the AOI, locations named in permit applications for G&G activities, and the availability of adequate 

support facilities that could be used by survey vessels. Many smaller ports exist along the coast from 

Delaware to Florida that could be used as support bases for G&G activities associated with individual 

renewable energy or marine minerals projects. (See Chapter 3.5.1.3 for a discussion of onshore support 

activities.) 

The following chapters describe the environmental and socioeconomic resources in the AOI and 

analyze potential impacts of the proposed action, as described in detail in Chapter 2.1.1, on them. 

Appendix F provides an overview of the physical-chemical environment, including geology, 

meteorology, oceanography, water quality, and acoustics. Additional information is provided in recent 

publications from the Environmental Studies Program conducted by BOEM, as listed in Appendix G. 

4.2.1. Benthic Communities

4.2.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment

The benthic environment of the AOI straddles two broad eco-regions: (1) the MAB, which extends 

from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; and (2) the SAB, which extends from 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Canaveral, Florida. The continental margins in these two areas 

differ topographically. The MAB has a classic shelf-slope-rise sequence, while the SAB has a 

terrace-like sequence with several prominent features (Figure 4-2). The MAB and SAB coincide with 

two biogeographic regions, the North Atlantic Temperate Region and the North Atlantic Subtropical 

Region, which are divided by the northern edge of the Gulf Stream as it is deflected eastward at Cape 

Hatteras (Wiebe et al., 1987).

The seafloor in the MAB consists predominantly of soft sediments, mostly sands but grading to silt 

and clay in deeper areas (Boesch, 1979; Wigley and Theroux, 1981). Hard bottom habitats are sparsely 

distributed over the MAB shelf and are composed of bare rock, gravel, shell hash, and artificial reefs

(Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). In contrast, there are extensive areas of hard/live bottom on the SAB shelf 

(Figure 4-3) (Van Dolah et al., 1994). In deeper water, hard bottom habitats are associated with canyon 

walls in the MAB and with deepwater coral bioherms along the Blake Plateau and Florida-Hatteras slope 

in the SAB. Locations of canyons and some hard bottom features are well known (e.g., Gray’s Reef). In 

other areas where the presence of deepwater corals is known but the distribution of coral sites is not 

well-documented, broad areas have been designated as HAPCs by the SAFMC to protect these 

communities from physical damage by fishing gear. Although the SAFMC does not regulate activities 

unrelated to fishing, the designation highlights the ecological importance of these areas and their 

sensitivity to seafloor-disturbing activities.

The following discussion provides an overview of benthic communities in the MAB, SAB, and 

Hatteras middle slope (an area with unique benthic characteristics). The overview is followed by a 

discussion of sensitive benthic communities.
4-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.1.1.1. Regional Overview

Mid-Atlantic Bight

The MAB has a classic shelf-slope-rise sequence. The continental shelf extends to a water depth of 

approximately 100 m (328 ft). The change in gradual to steep topographic relief between the continental 

shelf and the slope is the shelf break, occurring in water depths between 40 and 160 m (131 and 525 ft) 

(Tucholke, 1987). The continental slope, occurring between 200- and 2,000-m (656- and 6,562-ft) water 

depths, is characterized by a steep depth gradient varying from 4° to 11° (Tucholke, 1987). The 

continental rise, at water depths of 2,000-4,000 m (6,562-13,123 ft), is a narrow transition zone that 

parallels the continental margin from the bathyal to the abyssal plain (Rex et al., 2005).

The continental shelf in the MAB is a heterogeneous region dominated by a ridge-and-swale 

(hill-and-valley) topography resulting in a patchy distribution of sediments and varying benthic 

communities (Boesch, 1979). The shelf is characterized by a sandy uniform bottom with persistent shoals 

consisting of medium-grained sand inshore, grading to muddy finer sands at the shelf break (Boesch, 

1979; Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 2000; Slacum et al., 2006). Coarser surficial sediments are 

often found on ridges and shoals, while generally finer sediments with higher organic carbon content are 

found in swales, along with greater biomass and species diversity (Boesch, 1979). Polychaetes, bivalves, 

and amphipods are common in sand habitats of the continental shelf (Schaffner and Boesch, 1982; Brooks 

et al., 2006). Large burrowers and surface tube dwellers are found in the fine, stable sediments of swales.

Within the soft sediment matrix found in the MAB, natural and man-made reef habitats occur in 

estuaries, along the coast, across the continental shelf, and in deeper waters. Natural reef habitats are 

found in some areas of the MAB and consist of biogenic or rock material. These habitats are typically 

exposed rock outcrops or boulders. In addition, off coastal Delaware and farther south, there are reports 

of cobbles and loose rock patches associated with gravelly areas that are also associated with “live 

bottom,” i.e., the rocks are colonized by sea whips, stony coral, and other biogenic structural enhancers. 

Man-made reefs include shipwrecks, which constitute one of the most abundant types of man-made reef 

habitat in the Bight (Steimle and Zetlin, 2000).

In the MAB, the continental shelf can be divided into four faunal zones related to depth (Boesch, 

1979): the inner shelf (18-30 m [59-98 ft]), open or mid-shelf (30-50 m [98-164 ft]), outer shelf 

(50-100 m [164-328 ft]), and shelf break or ridge (100-200 m [328-656 ft]) zones. Medium to 

medium-coarse sand with a trace of silt and clay are found on the inner shelf and are colonized 

predominantly by small infauna or large motile predators (Boesch, 1979). A silty sand consisting of 

greater silt, clay, and organic material is characteristic of the open or mid-shelf faunal zone and is 

colonized by a greater number of tube-dwelling organisms and macrobenthic suspension and deposit 

feeders than the inner shelf zone (Boesch, 1979). The OCS is colonized by a silt-clay fauna dominated by 

deposit feeding polychaetes, bivalves, and echinoderms (Boesch, 1979). The shelf break is a transitional 

zone from the sandy sediments on the shelf to the finer, silt- and clay-dominated sediments on the slope. 

Polychaetes, brittle stars, galatheid crabs, and tubeworms colonize the muddy sediments of the shelf break 

(Boesch, 1979).

Density and biomass of macrofauna are greater in finer shelf sediments found on the outer shelf 

compared to the coarser sediments found on the inner shelf (Boesch, 1979). Earlier surveys of the region, 

including those of Boesch (1979), found that small polychaetes, peracarid crustaceans, mollusks, and 

echinoid and ophiuroid echinoderms were the dominant macrofauna along the MAB shelf. Slacum et al. 

(2006) indicated that many of the benthic organisms are distributed throughout the entire MAB and 

include over 160 taxa, with the most abundant species being annelid worms, mollusks, and crustaceans.

The continental slope, occurring in water depths of 200-2,000 m (656-6,562 ft), is characterized by a 

steep depth gradient varying from 4° to 11° (Tucholke, 1987). Sediments are predominantly silt and clay 

(Boesch, 1979). Macrofaunal density generally decreases with depth, which corresponds to changes in 

sediment grain size (Boesch, 1979; Wigley and Theroux, 1981).

The continental rise (water depths of 2,000-~4,000 m [6,562-13,124 ft]) is a narrow transition zone 

that parallels the continental margin from the bathyal to the abyssal zone (Rex et al., 2005). Deposit 

feeders are the dominant epifaunal group present below 2,000 m (6,562 ft) (Rex et al., 2005). Density 

and diversity of the macrofaunal community in the abyss continue to decrease with both depth and 

distance from land; macrofaunal abundance is two to three orders of magnitude lower than on the 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-11

continental margin (Rex et al., 2005). Macro- and megafaunal diversity decrease from the mid-bathyal 

depths to the abyssal plain (Stuart and Rex, 2009).

Hatteras Middle Slope

The continental shelf and slope offshore Cape Hatteras represents a transition between the MAB and 

SAB (Cerame-Vivas and Gray, 1966). The Hatteras middle slope area is characterized by high densities 

of benthic infauna, unusual communities of benthic fishes and invertebrates, and a relatively high rate of 

flux of labile organic carbon to the bottom (Diaz et al., 1993; Blake and Grassle, 1994; Blake and Hilbig, 

1994; Sulak and Ross, 1996; Aller et al., 2002; Green et al., 2002). A portion of this area has long been 

known as “The Point” and is an important fishing area (Ross et al., 2001; Currin and Ross, 2002). “The 

Point” is designated by the SAFMC as an Essential Fish Habitat-Habitat Area of Particular Concern 

(EFH-HAPC).

Polychaetes and oligochaetes numerically dominate the macrobenthos, and nematodes dominate the 

meiofauna. There are variations in sediment depth, species, densities, and size classes noted across the 

shelf and slope (Diaz et al., 1993; Aller et al., 2002). High rates of bioturbation have been documented in 

this area, infauna have been collected in cores to at least 20 cm (8 in), and direct visual observations 

revealed large crustacean burrow galleries providing evidence of a deep-burrowing benthos (Diaz et al., 

1993; Aller et al., 2002; Green et al., 2002). Sulak and Ross (1996) reported that the demersal fish fauna 

in this area is remarkable for the diminutive size of individuals within and across species.

The Hatteras middle slope is one of the steepest slope environments along the U.S. east coast and is 

influenced by the complex hydrographic structure of the water column off Cape Hatteras resulting from 

the interactions of circulation patterns of major currents, position of ocean fronts, Gulf Stream eddies and 

meanders, water column stratification, and upwellings. The unique nature of the bottom fauna is closely 

linked to the biological and physical interactions that are regulated by these currents (Diaz et al., 1993; 

Blake and Grassle, 1994).

South Atlantic Bight

The continental margin of the SAB is characterized by a terrace-like sequence with several prominent 

features: Blake Plateau, Charleston Bump, Blake Ridge, and Blake Escarpment (Popenoe and Manheim, 

2001) (Figure 4-2). Soft bottom habitats in the SAB are primarily sand habitats of varying grain size. 

Hard bottom habitats are interspersed throughout the SAB and range from areas of flat hard bottom with a 

sand veneer sparsely colonized by sponges and soft corals to dense coral thickets on shelf-edge coral 

banks (Parker et al., 1983; Van Dolah et al., 1994; Schobernd and Sedberry, 2009).

Soft bottom macroinfaunal communities on the continental shelf of the SAB have high species 

diversity but low densities because of unstable sediments, wide temperature fluctuation, and low nutrient 

and organic carbon inputs (Tenore, 1979, 1985). The benthic community structure of the shelf varies 

with physical factors (temperature, depth, sediment texture) as well as with population factors (natality, 

mortality, recruitment, migration) but generally has a north-south homogeneity with a cross-shelf 

zonation (Tenore, 1979). Many of the fauna are surface deposit feeders or filter feeders with quick 

generation times that can respond quickly to intermittent and patchy nutrient inputs (Tenore, 1985). The 

inner shelf assemblage, dominated by magelonid, prionospid, and nereid polychaetes, and both burrowing 

and surface brittle stars, differs from the central and outer shelf zones, which are more similar to each 

other (Tenore, 1985).

The nearshore area of the SAB is a relatively narrow band (~20 km [12 mi]) that receives the 

continental organic and inorganic nutrient outfall, resulting in relatively high silt/clay fractions and 

nutrient conditions favorable to biological activity (Tenore, 1979). The shallow, wide shelf of the SAB is 

characterized by a sandy bottom interspersed with isolated areas of live bottom of varying relief.

The Blake Plateau is a broad, terrace-like feature seaward of the southern Atlantic shelf off of 

Georgia and South Carolina in water depths ranging from 500 to 1,100 m (1,640 to 3,609 ft) (Popenoe 

and Manheim, 2001). South of the Charleston Bump, surficial sediments consist primarily of poorly 

sorted carbonates with a significant clay fraction, while relatively thick accumulations of well sorted 

carbonate sand increase in thickness north of the Charleston Bump (Popenoe and Manheim, 2001).
4-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.1.1.2. Sensitive Benthic Communities

Live Bottom Areas

Hard bottom habitats occur widely on the continental shelf in the AOI, particularly in the SAB 

(Figure 4-3), where they are often referred to as “live bottom.” The term was coined by Cummins et al. 

(1962) to describe highly productive trawling areas of hard bottom from North Carolina to Florida. 

Strushaker (1969) subsequently defined live bottom habitat as islands of broken relief on the shelf 

consisting of rock outcrops heavily encrusted with sessile invertebrates such as sponges and sea fans and 

harboring subtropical and tropical fishes. Large sponges and corals may be important components of 

these habitats because they enhance structural complexity of the environment and therefore contribute 

shelter and hiding places attractive to fishes (Fraser and Sedberry, 2008). Additionally, these large sessile 

organisms provide microhabitats for various smaller invertebrate species that may provide food for a 

variety of reef and pelagic fishes. Several specific live bottom areas in the SAB are designated by the 

SAFMC as EFH-HAPCs, including Big Rocks, Outer Hurl Rocks, 10 Fathom Ledge, and Gray’s Reef. 

The distribution and ecology of live bottom areas in the SAB have been studied extensively. These 

studies include general habitat descriptions (Barans and Henry, 1984), surveys and mapping (USDOI, 

Bureau of Land Management [BLM], 1981; Van Dolah et al., 1994), fish assemblages (Miller and 

Richards, 1980; Sedberry and Van Dolah, 1984), fish spawning habitats and behavior (Sedberry et al., 

2006), seasonality (Wenner et al., 1983, 1984), and evaluation of damage to sessile biota from trawling 

(Van Dolah et al., 1987).

Live bottom is distributed across the SAB shelf from shallow, nearshore waters to the shelf edge and 

upper slope (Van Dolah et al., 1994). The locations of hard bottom and “probable” hard bottom habitat in 

the region have been mapped and are available on the SAFMC map server at

http://ocean.floridamarine.org/safmc_atlas. 

Parker et al. (1983) estimated that 24 percent of the SAB shelf area between 27 and 101 m (89 and 

331 ft) is hard bottom habitat. Van Dolah et al. (1994) mapped hard bottom habitats throughout the SAB 

based on various data sources but did not cite a percentage.

The SAFMC (2009) cautions that the exact size and location of live-bottom habitat in the SAB is not 

well defined. By its nature, this habitat type is discontinuous and patchy. BOEM has determined that 

incomplete or unavailable data or information about the location of sensitive benthic habitat in the AOI is 

not relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts and is not essential to a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives, including the No Action alternative (40 CFR § 1502.22). Some G&G activities 

that are being evaluated in the proposed action are undertaken to locate these habitats or allow their 

presence to be inferred on the basis of geophysical evidence. The results of these surveys will allow 

BOEM to mitigate by avoiding significant adverse impacts on live bottom habitat.

Nearshore hard bottom habitats are patchily distributed throughout the nearshore area in water depths 

of 4-25 m (13-82 ft) primarily located between Jacksonville, Florida, and Charleston, South Carolina 

(Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1979; Powles and Barans, 1980) and in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 

(MacIntyre, 2003). These nearshore hard bottom habitats primarily consist of low relief rock outcrops, 

often referred to as sponge-coral habitats, colonized by decapods, mollusks, polychaetes, sponges, 

octocorals, ascidians, echinoderms, bryozoans, and algae (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1979; 

Wenner et al., 1983). Flat rock outcrops in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, are colonized by two species of 

zooxanthellate corals, Solenastrea hyades and Siderastrea siderea, in water depths of 20-40 m (66-131 ft) 

(MacIntyre, 2003).

Hard bottom outcrops on the SAB shelf range from a fairly level seafloor covered by a thin veneer of 

sand to high-relief outcrops (Miller and Richards, 1980; Sedberry and Van Dolah, 1984). High-relief 

ridges occur along the shelf edge (Barans and Henry, 1984; Schobernd and Sedberry, 2009). The shelf 

edge reef varies from a narrow steep scarp of nearly vertical relief and faulted blocks of hard substrate 

located in 50-60 m (164-197 ft) depths off of Florida to a partially buried and broader reef, sometimes 

consisting of a double-ridge system as one moves progressively northward to South Carolina (Sedberry et 

al., 2004). A moderate-to-heavy growth of epifauna consisting of a variety of sponges (Aplysina archeri, 

Chondrilla sp., and Iricina campana), antipatharian corals (Stichopathes sp.), octocorals, algae, 

bryozoans, and hard corals can be found in this habitat (Barans and Henry, 1984; Sedberry et al., 2004). 

Dense assemblages of large invertebrates occur off Florida, while larger species are replaced by smaller 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-13

tunicates, encrusting sponges, and hydrozoans off South Carolina (Sedberry et al., 2004). Polychaetes 

and crustaceans are common infaunal components on shelf edge reefs (Sedberry et al., 2004).

A conspicuous hard/live bottom feature on the SAB shelf is Gray’s Reef NMS offshore Georgia; this 

site supports up to 150 fish species and is a popular site for recreational fishing and boating (Kendall 

et al., 2007; Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, 2011). Gray’s Reef NMS encompasses 

approximately 57 km2 (22 mi2

) and is a submerged hard bottom (limestone) area that, when compared to 

surrounding areas, contains extensive but scattered rock outcroppings interspersed with sand bottom. The 

hard bottom ranges from areas with little or no vertical relief to areas of irregular, high-relief rocky ledges 

(>2 m [6.6 ft]) where invertebrate growth is abundant. Most of the hard bottom areas at Gray’s Reef are 

flat, with a thin veneer of sand overlying sandstone or limestone rock, and are sparsely colonized by 

sessile invertebrates (Kendall et al., 2007). Further information on Gray’s Reef NMS is provided in 

Chapter 4.2.11.1. 

At the southern edge of the AOI (offshore east-central Florida), there are unusual nearshore hard 

bottom formations that consist of shore-parallel rocky outcrops in water depths ranging from 0 to 4 m 

(0 to 13 ft) (CSA International, Inc., 2009). These outcrops are composed of sediment and mollusk shells 

that accumulated during the last interglacial period. They support assemblages of algae, invertebrates, 

and (primarily juvenile) fishes and sea turtles (Gilmore et al., 1981; CSA International, Inc., 2009). These 

nearshore Phragmatopoma “reefs” are created by the tube worm Phragmatopoma lapidosa and are 

designated by the SAFMC as an EFH-HAPC.

Deepwater Corals and Chemosynthetic Communities

Deepwater coral systems can be found in almost all the world’s oceans and seas, but only recently 

have these systems become of the focus of scientific research (Freiwald et al., 2004). They have been 

cited as important fish habitat and hotspots of biodiversity (Partyka et al., 2007).

Studies of Mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S. canyons in the 1970’s and 1980’s showed that canyons 

supported deepwater coral communities and other sessile benthic fauna. Research in the last decade has 

documented the occurrence of deepwater coral features in the SAB (Reed and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 

2006; Ross, 2006). Several features including Lophelia coral mounds on the Blake Plateau and the 

Oculina Bank offshore east-central Florida have been mapped. These features have been designated as 

Deepwater Coral HAPCs by the SAFMC. In addition, one chemosynthetic community site has been 

reported on the Blake Ridge (Van Dover et al., 2003) and is also designated as a Deepwater Coral HAPC.

Submarine Canyons

Submarine canyons are important features of the MAB shelf edge and slope. There are three major 

canyons in the AOI (Baltimore, Washington, and Norfolk) and several minor canyons (Warr, Accomac, 

Hull, Keller, Hatteras, and Pamlico) (Figure 4-2). The New England Fishery Management Council 

(NEFMC) (2007) has designated Baltimore, Washington, and Norfolk Canyons as HAPCs.

Canyons vary in size, shape, and morphological complexity; some have a riverine origin, but most 

formed via other erosional processes such as slides, debris flows, and turbidity currents (Uchupi, 1968; 

Malahoff et al., 1980; Tucholke, 1987). Through the National Oceanographic Partnership Program 

(NOPP), BOEM is currently co-sponsoring a study of deepwater biological communities associated with 

Mid-Atlantic canyons and the physical and chemical processes that may influence these communities 

within these canyons (NOPP, 2011).

Exposed hard substrata are present in most MAB canyons, including steep-sided walls, exposed 

ridges, talus fields, and isolated rocks and boulders (Tucholke, 1987). Hard bottoms have been identified 

from submersible dives (Hecker et al., 1980). From the current NOPP study, the most rugged habitats, 

mostly walls, boulders, and slabs of consolidated sediments, occurred near the heads of the canyons. 

Biodiversity was extremely high on canyon hard substrata. Potential food resources in the form of 

amphipods and small shrimps were very abundant in some locations.

Deepwater corals have been documented in several canyons bisecting the shelf edge and slope in the 

MAB (Packer et al., 2007). The black coral Cirrhipathes sp. was documented at 262 m (860 ft) off 

Virginia (Packer et al., 2007). Dense localized patches of solitary stony corals and massive colonies of 

gorgonians are documented in Baltimore and Norfolk Canyons (Packer et al., 2007). Available 

information indicates that the MAB canyon corals are dominated by octocorals, solitary scleractinia, and 
4-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

anemones (Packer et al., 2007) rather than by the large concentrations of reef-forming stony corals 

(Lophelia pertusa, Enallopsammia profunda) that dominate the southeastern U.S. or Gulf of Mexico 

(Ross and Nizinski, 2007).

From the current NOPP study, the branching octocoral Paragorgia arborea was the most common 

coral species encountered, frequently observed attached to canyon walls and boulders. Scleractinian 

corals were rare and represented by several species of cup (or solitary) corals and isolated colonies of 

Lophelia pertusa. The solitary coral Desmophyllum cristigalli occurred only in the deeper parts of the 

canyons (>600 m [1,970 ft]) and was attached to the underside of overhanging hard substrata. The 

L. pertusa observations may be the first from the middle Atlantic region, and this species occurred on 

steep walls at approximately 400 m (1,312 ft). Red crabs (Geryon quinquedens) were probably the most 

common mobile macroinvertebrate observed on and within canyon features. Fishes were abundant during 

all dives, and several commercially important species were common.

A cold seep discovered by Barbara Hecker in 1980 was rediscovered during the current NOPP study 

and was much larger than reported by Hecker. It contained dense aggregations of mussels and exhibited 

active gas (probably methane) bubbling as well as bacterial mats.

Lophelia Coral Areas 

Deepwater coral areas have been mapped and studied from North Carolina to the Florida Straits 

(Reed and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 2006; Ross, 2006). The SAFMC has designated Deepwater Coral 

HAPCs encompassing the known areas (Figure 4-4). The SAFMC has recently discovered 

Lophelia reefs in 200 m water depth off the coast of Florida and is reviewing potential modifications to 

existing HAPCs to include the 200-m (656-ft) depth contour; Figure 4-4 illustrates the designated areas 

as of January 2012.

North Carolina (Cape Lookout and Cape Fear HAPCs): The northernmost coral banks in the 

southeastern U.S. occur off of North Carolina and appear to be formed by successive coral growth, 

collapse, and sediment entrapment (Reed and Ross, 2005; Ross, 2006; Ross and Quattrini, 2007). The 

tops and sides of these mounds are mostly covered by dense monotypic thickets of L. pertusa, but other 

colonial corals (Madrepora oculata and Enallopsammia spp.) and various solitary corals also contribute 

to the overall complexity of the habitat (Reed and Ross, 2005; Ross, 2006). The Lophelia reefs off North 

Carolina also have a well-developed and abundant invertebrate fauna visually dominated by the brittle 

star Ophiacantha bidenata, galatheid crabs (especially Eumunida picta), and the basket star Novodinia 

antillensis (Ross, 2006).

Stetson Reef/Savannah and East Florida Lithoherms/Miami Terrace: This HAPC encompasses 

several Lophelia sites (Stetson Reef, Savannah, East Florida Lithoherms, and Miami Terrace). Stetson 

Reef is a very large region of extremely diverse, rugged topography and bottom types on the eastern edge 

of the Blake Plateau southeast of Charleston, South Carolina, within the region of the Charleston Bump 

(640-869 m [2,100-2,851 ft]) (Stetson et al., 1962; Reed and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 2006; Ross, 2006). 

L. pertusa, primarily located on top of the mounds, and Enallopsammia profunda are the dominant 

scleractinian coral species, but sponges, gorgonians, octocorals, and black coral are also present (Reed 

and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 2006; Ross and Nizinski, 2007; Ross and Quattrini, 2007). Dominant groups 

of mobile benthic invertebrates observed in this habitat include squat lobsters Eumunida picta, the 

portunid crabs Bathynectes longispina and Chaceon fenneri (Geryonidae), echinoderms (Sylocidaris spp. 

and an unidentified white urchin), and dense populations of Ophiuroidea (Reed et al., 2006).

The Savannah site is an area along the western Blake Plateau at the base of the Florida-Hatteras Slope 

composed of tall (30-60 m [98-197 ft]) mounds covered with thickets of corals, sponges, and gorgonians 

known as the Savannah Lithoherms (Reed and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 2006). These high-relief (61-m 

[200-ft]) Lophelia mounds with rock ledges, sharp ridges, and scarps occur at depths of 490-550 m 

(1,608-1,804 ft) (Reed et al., 2006). While deep corals occur there, they are often scattered in and 

concentrated on patches of exposed hard bottom (Reed et al., 2006; Ross, 2006). Dominant sessile biota 

consists of sponges (Phakellia spp., Geodia spp. Pachastrellidae, and Hexactinellida), Scleractinia 

(L. pertusa and M. oculata), stylasterid hydrocorals, octocorals, and black coral (Antipathes spp.) (Reed et 

al., 2006). Motile fauna consist primarily of echinoderms (cidaroid and Hygrosoma spp. urchins) and 

large decapods crustaceans (C. fenneri and large Galatheidae) (Reed et al., 2006).

The East Florida Lithoherms/Miami Terrace area consists of a 222-km (138-mi) stretch of nearly 

300 coral bioherms and lithoherms from Jacksonville and southern Georgia south to Jupiter, Florida, at 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-15

depths of 670-866 m (2,198-2,841 ft) (Reed and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 2006). The northern sites are 

primarily rocky pinnacles capped with coral debris and live coral thickets, and the features from 

St. Augustine south are predominantly mud mounds capped with dense, 1-m (3.3-ft) tall thickets of 

L. pertusa and coral rubble (Reed and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 2006). Dominant sessile fauna consists of 

L. pertusa, Isididae, Antipatharia, small octocorals and gorgonians, and sponges (Reed et al., 2006).

Oculina Bank

The Oculina Bank is located near the continental shelf edge off east-central Florida, near the southern 

boundary of the AOI (Figure 4-4). It is a 150-km (90-mi) strip of deepwater coral reefs named for the 

presence of banks, thickets, and rubble zones of a stony coral that occurs there (Oculina varicosa) 

(Reed and Ross, 2005; Ross and Nizinski, 2007). Depths of the Oculina Bank range from about 

60-120 m (197-394 ft). The substrate is mostly sandy, silty, and muddy sediments with limestone ridges 

and pinnacles. The pinnacles vary in size and shape but can rapidly rise as much as 18 m (60 ft) or more 

from the seabed. They are capped on the slopes and crest with living and dead colonies of Oculina 

varicosa (Reed and Ross, 2005; Reed et al., 2005). Invertebrate diversity on Oculina reefs is equivalent 

to many shallow-water tropical reefs with many species of mollusks, decapods, amphipods, echinoderms, 

and pycnogonids, but larger sessile invertebrates such as massive sponges and gorgonians are not 

common (Reed, 2002a; Ross and Nizinski, 2007).

The Oculina Bank has suffered extensive habitat damage from mobile fishing gear (trawls and 

dredges) and anchoring activities (Reed et al., 2007). In 1984, the SAFMC recognized the special 

significance of the Oculina Bank habitat and designated it as a Deepwater Coral HAPC. This action 

closed the area to trawling, dredging, longlining, and trapping. Additional restrictions apply to anchoring 

and possession of rock shrimp and Oculina while in this area. In 1994, the SAFMC created the Oculina

Experimental Closed Area (OECA), which closed the area to all bottom fishing indefinitely.

Charleston Bump

The Charleston Bump is a feature located on the northern portion of the Blake Plateau (Figure 4-2) 

(Popenoe and Manheim, 2001; Sedberry et al., 2001). It rises abruptly from 700 to 300 m (2,300 to 

980 ft) in depth over a distance of about 20 km (12 mi). The topography of the Charleston Bump deflects 

the Gulf Stream offshore, causing eddies, gyres, and upwelling that concentrate plankton, fishes, and 

other organisms and leads to localized increases in overall productivity. Areas containing the highest 

relief are the only documented spawning locations for wreckfish (Polyprion americanus) (USDOC, 

NMFS, 2011d). Hard bottom habitats on the Charleston Bump vary from flat pavements with a thin sand 

veneer to a high relief ridge and trough feature (300-m [984-ft] relief) with various levels of coral

coverage (Popenoe and Manheim, 2001; Sedberry et al., 2001; Ross and Quattrini, 2007). While the 

seafloor is primarily hard bottom, Wenner and Barans (1990) described both mud and sand habitats on the 

Charleston Bump, and Popenoe and Manheim (2001) noted extensive ripple areas and large sand-wave 

fields composed of carbonate sands that accumulated in low areas. The Charleston Bump is designated 

by the SAFMC as an EFH-HAPC.

Chemosynthetic Communities

Van Dover et al. (2003) documented a soft-sediment, chemosynthetically based ecosystem associated 

with a methane hydrate site on the Blake Ridge (Figure 4-5). The site is located in a water depth of 

2,155 m (7,071 ft) at 32°29.623' N, 76°11.467' W. The SAFMC has designated this area as the Blake 

Ridge Diapir Deepwater Coral HAPC.

At the Blake Ridge diapir site, gas-rich plumes rising up to 320 m (1,050 ft) in the water column have 

been detected where the fault system intersects the seafloor (Van Dover et al., 2003). The terrain 

observed from the submersible ranged from flat to rugged, hummocky surfaces draped by fine, readily 

suspended silt-clay sediments that varied in color from yellow to gray. The prominent morphologic 

feature on the ridge crest is a circular depression (50-m [164-ft] diameter, 4 m [13 ft] deep) whose floor is 

covered by beds of densely packed, live and dead large mussels and by fields of vesicomyid clams.

According to Van Dover et al. (2003), the Blake Ridge area is among the most extensively mapped 

gas hydrate provinces in the world’s oceans. In this area, a line of about, 20 salt diapirs begins near the 
4-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

intersection of the Blake Ridge with the Carolina Rise and extends northward on the eastern side of the 

Carolina Trough. Although only one site has been documented in this area to date, it is likely that others 

are present.

4.2.1.1.3. Artificial Reefs

In addition to natural hard bottom habitats, artificial reefs provide suitable substrate for the 

proliferation of live bottom communities (SAFMC, 2009). Figure 4-6 shows locations of artificial reefs 

in the AOI. These artificial habitats are an integral part of the coastal and shelf ecosystem in the region 

that support a diverse and special biological community (Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). Artificial reefs are 

typically composed of objects that provide hard surfaces such as metal, wood, and concrete, which can 

support algae, barnacles, sponge, tubeworms, hydroids, anemones, encrusting bryozoans, oysters, blue 

mussels, tunicates, and caprellid amphipods (Steimle and Figley, 1996; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). The 

communities are often similar to those occurring on natural hard bottoms, though the size, composition, 

location, and age affect the structure and habitat value of these reefs (Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). In the 

SAB, the combined area of artificial substrates is much smaller than the total area of natural, exposed 

hard bottom (SAFMC, 2009), but in the MAB artificial reefs represent a more significant contribution to 

the available hard substrate (Steimle and Zetlin, 2000).

4.2.1.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses the potential impacts of routine activities associated with Alternative A on 

benthic communities. As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1, through preliminary screening of the activities and 

affected resources, the IPFs for benthic communities were determined to include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources (e.g., airgun noise); (2) trash and debris; (3) seafloor disturbance; and (4) drilling discharges

(Table 4-2). Active acoustic sound sources have the potential to produce impacts to benthic invertebrates 

present in the AOI via sound exposure. Several types of G&G survey activities (e.g., bottom sampling, 

deep stratigraphic, and shallow test wells) could disrupt the seafloor and result in localized burial or 

crushing of benthic communities. In addition, drilling discharges from the installation of stratigraphic 

and shallow test wells could result in localized smothering and burial of benthic communities. Most 

G&G survey activities are transient; therefore, the accidental release of trash and debris is not a major 

impact concern for benthic communities. However, during the installation of stratigraphic and shallow 

test wells, a drilling rig would be located on station for a longer period of time; therefore, the potential for 

accidental release of trash and debris could be a concern for benthic communities. These potential IPFs 

and their associated impacts are discussed below.

4.2.1.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to benthic communities would include impacts to soft bottom benthic organisms 

that might produce extremely small changes in abundance of individual species but no overall changes in 

species composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning of soft bottom communities.

Minor impacts to benthic communities would include those that are detectable but are not severe. 

Soft bottom benthic communities showing a minor impact are expected to realize limited changes in 

species composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning beyond that of normal 

variability.

Moderate impacts would include measurable, extensive, but not severe damage to sensitive benthic 

resources, including live bottom and hard bottom (hard/live bottom) communities, deepwater corals, or 

chemosynthetic communities. For soft bottom communities, moderate impacts would include changes in 

species composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning that are either locally or 

spatially extensive, but not severe. Under the moderate impact category, some impacts may be 

irreversible.

Major impacts to benthic communities would include localized short-term or long lasting and severe 

damage or spatially extensive and severe damage to sensitive benthic resources, including live bottom and 

hard bottom (hard/live bottom) communities, deepwater corals, or chemosynthetic communities. Major 

impacts would also encompass extensive and severe changes in species composition, community 

structure, and/or ecological functioning of soft bottom communities, with measurable change in species 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-17

composition or abundance beyond that of normal variability, or ecological function within a species 

range.

Benthic communities of greatest concern within the AOI include extensive hard/live bottom areas in 

the SAB, and deepwater corals and chemosynthetic communities, including the one found on the Blake 

Ridge. Many of these sensitive benthic communities are found on the continental shelf and shelf edge 

(hard/live bottom habitats) or within various submarine canyons. No listed endangered or threatened 

species are found within benthic communities of the AOI, although several endangered species may rely 

upon the benthos (e.g., hawksbill and Kemp’s ridley turtles [Chapter 4.2.3], and smalltooth sawfish

feeding on benthic invertebrates [Chapter 4.2.6]).

4.2.1.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

The proposed action includes extensive 2D and 3D surveys involving several airgun sources, 

including a large airgun array (5,400 in3

) and a small airgun array (90 in3). The scenario for the 

2012-2020 timeframe includes 616,174 line km of 2D streamer surveys, 2,500 blocks of 3D streamer 

surveys (or 120,000 line km, assuming 48 line km [30 line mi] per block), and 900 line km of 3D WAZ

surveys. These surveys could occur anywhere within the AOI, including over continental shelf, slope, 

and canyon areas containing benthic communities of interest.

The acoustic energy of airguns is directed towards the seafloor. Sound pressure from the full airgun 

array would be produced from a moving source, with periodic firing of the airguns every 16 s for 2D and 

3D surveys. In the interim between firings, the vessel and its array would cover approximately 37.5 m 

(123 ft). Consequently, the seafloor and benthic communities beneath an active airgun array would be 

exposed to a limited number of airgun firings with variable sound pressure intensity (i.e., increasing levels 

as the array approaches; decreasing levels as the array departs; attenuation of sound pressure increases 

with increasing water depth).

The impacts to benthic communities from active acoustic sound sources (e.g., airguns) are not 

well-documented and there are no known systematic studies of the effects of sound on invertebrates. 

Most marine invertebrates do not have sensory organs that can perceive sound pressure, but many have 

tactile hairs or sensory organs that are sensitive to water disturbances; available data suggest that 

invertebrates are capable of detecting vibrations but do not appear to be capable of detecting pressure 

fluctuations (LGL Limited environmental research associates, 2011; LGL Limited environmental research 

associates and Marine Acoustics Inc., 2011; Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2012). Most studies 

performed have dealt with only a single or a limited number of species. Mooney et al. (2010) indicated 

that receptors found in longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) may be sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hz) 

with a more pronounced effect in close vicinity to a sound source. Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2012) 

concluded that many invertebrates are sensitive to local water movements and to low-frequency particle 

accelerations from sources in close proximity. Some invertebrates, including crustaceans, may be 

especially sensitive to substratum vibrations. A number of aquatic decapod crustaceans produce sounds, 

and many are able to detect vibration at sensitivities sufficient to determine the proximity of other 

organisms. However, it remains uncertain if these invertebrates respond to propagated sound waves at a 

distance from the source (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2012). Appendix J discusses the limited 

available information on sound use by aquatic invertebrates and summarizes potential impacts.

However, there are three potential types of impacts to marine invertebrates from exposure to seismic

survey noise (e.g., airguns): pathological, physiological, and behavioral. Pathological effects include 

lethal or permanent sublethal injury to organisms. Physiological effects include temporary and permanent 

primary and secondary stress responses (e.g., changes in levels of enzymes and proteins). Behavioral 

effects include temporary or permanent changes in behavior (e.g., feeding, startle and avoidance 

behavior). Very few specific data are available regarding seismic sound impacts that may cause 

pathological or physiological effects on invertebrates, and these data are limited to a small number of 

invertebrate species and life stages. Studies on behavioral responses make up the predominant available 

data. McCauley et al. (2000a) studied caged squid, with results showing a strong startle and avoidance 

response from exposure to an airgun. With the use of ramp-up, the strong startle response was not 

observed, but the avoidance response was noted (i.e., individuals stayed close to the water surface during 

airgun operations). Results indicate that behavioral changes and avoidance to an operating airgun by 
4-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

squid could occur at some range. André et al. (2011) indicated that captive giant squid exposed to 

low-frequency sounds, short sweeps of relatively low-intensity, low-frequency sound between 50 and 

400 Hz, for 2 hr resulted in permanent and substantial alterations in the sensory hair cells of the 

statocysts, the latter of which are the structures responsible for the animals’ sense of balance and position. 

It is recognized however that exposure parameters included long-term, confined exposure (i.e., the study 

was performed in a laboratory setting with specimens in small tanks). Observations obtained in such 

experimental settings are difficult to apply to open field conditions where sound field conditions may be 

very different, as are the conditions of exposure of animals.

Pathological effects resulting in acute injury or death of organisms result from exposure to sound

(barotrauma) are suspected to be dependent on two features of the sound source: the received absolute 

peak pressure relative to local static pressure at the receiver and the time required for the pressure to rise 

and decay. In general, the greater the change in pressure and the quicker the pressure rises and decays, 

the higher the potential for acute pathological effects. However, taking into account the peak absolute 

pressure relative to static pressure at the location of the receiver and rise/decay time of commonly used 

seismic airguns, the pathological zone for invertebrates is anticipated to be small (i.e., within a few meters 

of the seismic source; LGL Limited environmental research associates, 2011). Payne et al. (2007), in 

their analysis of feeding and serum biochemistry in the American lobster (Homarus americanus), 

observed a series of sublethal effects with respect to feeding and serum biochemistry; effects were 

sometimes observed weeks to months after exposure. However, these results may not necessarily apply 

to other invertebrates. A recent study of American lobster (LGL Limited environmental research 

associates, 2011) suggests that they are more sensitive to higher frequency sounds. Guerra et al. (2004) 

suggest spatial and temporal links between multiple strandings of giant squid and geophysical surveys 

using airguns, with the specimens showing evidence of acute tissue damage; however, results were 

speculative, as no evidence that conclusively linked the strandings to the seismic surveys was presented. 

Two studies assessing the pathological impacts of seismic survey sound on snow crabs (Chionoecetes 

opilio) have been performed. Neither study showed acute or chronic mortality or injury; however, there 

was a significant difference in the development rate between the exposed and unexposed fertilized 

eggs/embryos (LGL Limited environmental research associates, 2011). The stress responses to marine 

invertebrates could potentially affect populations by reducing reproductive capacity and adult abundance.

The limited available data (e.g., Payne et al., 2007 and Appendix J) assessing physiological effects or 

biochemical responses of marine invertebrates to acoustic noise do not indicate serious pathological or

physiological effects (LGL Limited environmental research associates, 2011). Based on the data BOEM

has reviewed and on its understanding of marine invertebrates, BOEM has determined that the incomplete 

or unavailable data or information on the physiological effects or biochemical response of marine 

invertebrates in the AOI that results from acoustic noise is not relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

significant adverse impacts or essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives (40 CFR § 1502.22). 

With the exception of live bottom and chemosynthetic communities (Chapter 4.2.1.1), BOEM does not 

place any special protections on soft-bottom epifauna or infauna prior to the deployment of active 

acoustic sources or bottom-disturbing activities. Foreknowledge of the presence of soft-bottom epifauna

or infauna would not initiate any mitigation by avoidance.

Studies that have addressed the behavior of marine invertebrates exposed to sound, including airguns, 

indicate that most are not seriously affected by far-field sounds, although many do respond to 

low-frequency stimulation (McCauley, 1994). For example, the alarm response (e.g., closing of siphons 

in sponges, ink squirting in squid) only occurs at very close range to a sound source, including airguns

operating in the absence of ramp-up procedures; such responses were considered negligible (McCauley, 

1994; McCauley et al., 2000a). When ramp-up procedures were used, the alarm response was not 

observed but avoidance behavior was noted (McCauley et al., 2000a). Research summarized by Froglia 

et al. (1998) indicated that there was no evidence of induced mortality on commercial clams and on 

macrobenthic invertebrates from the execution of a 3D airgun seismic survey with similar operating 

frequencies and pressure to those anticipated from G&G activities carried out on a shallow (<10 m 

[33 ft]) sandy bottom in the central Adriatic Sea. McCauley (1994) also indicated that the eggs and larvae 

of marine invertebrates may be affected in close proximity to a seismic array; however, the total number 

of potentially impacted eggs and larvae would be very small when compared to the overall numbers in an 

area. In addition, two studies (i.e., Christian et al., 2003; Parry and Gason, 2006) did not find any 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-19

evidence of changes in lobster catch rates or catch-per-unit-effort of snow crabs exposed to seismic 

survey sounds.

Results from applicable studies indicate that there could be an insignificant number of invertebrate 

species or developmental stages of individual invertebrates potentially injured if they are present in very 

close proximity to an operating airgun. However, the number of potentially injured individuals would be 

limited because of the water depths at which most seismic operations would occur (i.e., typically >100 m

[328 ft]) relative to the location of the animals (i.e., sound pressure and particle motion exposure levels 

sufficient to cause injury would be attenuated by the distance between the source and the animals) or the 

characteristics of the sound generated by the source (i.e., narrow beam for depth sounders). Based on 

results of studies of invertebrate communities following airgun exposure, detectable impacts on hard/live 

bottom, coral, or chemosynthetic communities are not expected from active acoustic sound sources. 

Further, only limited impacts to soft bottom benthic organisms are expected to be detectable, and no 

overall changes in species composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning of soft 

bottom communities are expected. Therefore, impacts to benthic communities from active acoustic sound 

sources would be negligible. 

Trash and Debris

The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells would be drilled in the AOI during the 

time period of the Programmatic EIS. COST wells are drilled using conventional rotary drilling 

techniques, the same as routinely used for drilling oil and gas exploration and development wells. 

Because a drilling rig could be on location for a few weeks to a couple of months, there is the potential for 

accidental releases of trash and debris. The effects of debris lost overboard from offshore drilling 

operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico have been addressed by several authors (e.g., Shinn et al., 1989, 

1993; Dustan et al., 1991; Shinn and Lidz, 1992). These assessments have evaluated operations in 

variable water depths (i.e., 21-149 m [69-489 ft]), over different substrates, and at variable times 

following the completion of drilling. Time elapsed is the most important factor determining habitat 

recovery. The loss of debris during exploratory drilling results in minimal impact to the benthic 

environment. In areas of extensive soft bottom, the debris has provided artificial hard substrate and 

produced epifaunal colonization and attracted fishes. 

Survey, sampling, and COST and shallow well drilling operations generate trash comprising paper, 

plastic, wood, glass, and metal. Most trash is associated with galley and offshore food service operations. 

In addition, over the last several years, companies operating offshore have developed and implemented 

trash and debris reduction and improved handling practices to reduce the amount of offshore trash that 

could potentially be lost into the marine environment. These trash management practices include 

substituting paper and ceramic cups and dishes for those made of styrofoam, recycling offshore trash, and 

transporting and storing supplies and materials in bulk containers when feasible and have resulted in a 

reduction of accidental loss of trash and debris.

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations that implement the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships (MARPOL) as amended by the 1978 Protocol (MARPOL 73/78). Within MARPOL Annex V, 

Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Garbage from Ships, as implemented by 33 CFR part 151, are

requirements designed to protect the marine environment from various types of garbage generated on 

board vessels. In addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine 

debris awareness. The guidance would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris 

Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012). Because operators must comply with Federal 

regulations and would be expected to follow the guidance provided by BOEM, the amount of trash and 

debris dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated, some 

of which could sink to the seafloor. Therefore, impacts from trash and debris on benthic communities, as 

generated by survey vessels, sampling, shallow or COST well drilling, and other G&G-related activities, 

would be negligible. 

Seafloor Disturbance

There are several G&G activities that could cause seafloor disturbance, including geological and 

geochemical samplings (e.g., bottom sampling, shallow coring), placement and removal of equipment on 
4-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

the seafloor (e.g., ocean bottom cables, anchors, receivers), and the installation of up to three COST wells 

and up to five shallow test wells. Both soft and hard/live bottom communities would potentially be 

affected by these G&G activities.

Proposed activities under Alternative A include bottom sampling in all three program areas. These 

include 50-300 core or grab samples in the oil and gas program; 3,106-9,969 core or grab samples in the 

renewable energy program; and 1-8 geologic cores, 60-320 grab samples, and 90-600 vibracores in the 

marine minerals program. Collection of each sample is estimated to disturb an area of approximately 

10 m2

, although the actual area of the core or grab extracted may be much smaller. The maximum total 

area disturbed by core or grab sampling is expected to be about 11 ha (27.7 ac), which represents 

0.00001 percent of the AOI. 

Sampling for renewable energy projects would occur at specific sites (consisting of one or more OCS 

blocks) in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. Offshore 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, the likely sampling locations would be within designated WEAs 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012c) (Chapters 3.3.3.1.1 and 4.2.12.1.4). North Carolina has identified 354 OCS 

blocks for further assessment within the period covered by this Programmatic EIS. Specific AOIs have 

not been identified for the South Atlantic states. Given the water depths of anticipated bottom sampling

for renewable energy projects, deepwater coral systems and the chemosynthetic community would not be 

at risk. However, shallow water hard/live bottom habitats may fall within the area of proposed bottom 

sampling activities. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require site-specific information 

regarding potential sensitive benthic communities (including hard/livebottom areas, deepwater coral 

communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior to approving any G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. The 

BOEM Renewable Energy Program has developed guidelines for these site-specific surveys. In addition, 

as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.3, setbacks from sensitive bottom communities applied to activities within 

the AOI would likely include those currently required for the Gulf of Mexico. BOEM would use this 

information and setbacks to ensure that physical impacts to sensitive benthic communities are avoided; 

therefore, hard/live bottom habitats would be protected from impacts from proposed bottom sampling 

activities and impacts would be negligible. 

Sampling activities for marine minerals would be conducted at specific borrow sites in water depths 

less than 30 m (98 ft). Much of the marine minerals activity is expected to occur within existing borrow 

sites offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic States (Chapter 4.2.12.1.3); therefore, deepwater coral

systems and chemosynthetic communities would not be at risk. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM 

would require site-specific information regarding potential sensitive benthic communities prior to 

approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities in the AOI and would implement 

setbacks from any sensitive bottom communities (Chapter 2.1.2.3). The guidelines developed by the 

BOEM Renewable Energy Program would provide guidance for these site-specific surveys (USDOI, 

BOEM, 2013). BOEM would use this information to ensure that physical impacts to sensitive benthic 

communities are avoided. Therefore, hard/live bottom habitats would be protected from impacts from 

proposed bottom sampling activities and the impacts would be negligible. 

Sampling for oil and gas exploration would be conducted at specific lease blocks where structures 

(e.g., drilling rigs, platforms, floating production structures, or pipelines) may be installed. The blocks 

could be anywhere within the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas and cannot be predicted as there are 

currently no active oil and gas leases in the Atlantic OCS. However, mapping and avoidance, as well as 

photographic surveys of areas where bottom-founded instrumentation and appurtenances (e.g., ocean 

bottom cables, anchors, receivers) are to be deployed may be required in areas where sensitive benthic 

communities are known or suspected. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require 

site-specific information regarding potential sensitive benthic communities (including hard/live bottom

areas, deepwater coral communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior to approving any G&G

activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment (e.g., ocean 

bottom cables, anchors, receivers) or structures in the AOI. The guidelines developed by BOEM 

Renewable Energy Program would provide guidance for these site-specific surveys (USDOI, BOEM, 

2013). In addition, as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.3, setbacks from sensitive bottom communities similar 

to those currently required for the Gulf of Mexico would be applied to activities within the AOI. BOEM 

would use this information and these setbacks to ensure that physical impacts to sensitive benthic 

communities are avoided; deepwater coral systems, the chemosynthetic community at Blake Ridge, and 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-21

hard/live bottom habitats within the AOI would be protected from proposed bottom sampling activities. 

Therefore, potential impacts to hard/live bottom, chemosynthetic communities, and deepwater coral 

systems from seafloor sampling under this alternative would be negligible. 

Bottom sampling activities would primarily take place in soft bottom areas as most bottom sampling

equipment cannot penetrate hard bottom substrate. The direct environmental consequences of 

piston/gravity cores are approximately 8-cm (3-in) diameter holes in the seafloor, and depending upon the 

firmness of the seafloor, the core or probe weight stand (30-45 cm [12-18 in] diameter footprint) may also 

impact the seafloor and crush seafloor animals if the core penetrates to the maximum depth. Grab 

sampling is performed to identify the benthic fauna and penetrates from a few inches to a few feet below 

the seafloor and typically involves 30-40 grabs within an area of interest. Piezocone penetrometer testing 

is performed to determine the sediment engineering properties and uses a probe typically 10-1,500 mm2 in 

diameter that is mounted on a frame and lowered to the seafloor. A vibracore survey generally uses a 

7-cm (2.8-in) diameter core barrel mounted on a 2- to 4-m2 platform and penetrates sediments between 

10-15 m (33-50 ft) below the seafloor and would obtain 15-25 cores in a 1 mi2 (259 ha) area of interest. 

All combined, the total area of seafloor disturbed by bottom sampling and shallow coring activities is 

estimated to be a very small area (0.000003% of the AOI) when compared to the overall seafloor area 

included in the AOI. Although several thousand cores may be collected under the renewable energy

program, sampling in soft bottom areas would produce only localized impacts to soft bottom benthos. 

Sampling under the oil and gas programs and marine minerals would be very limited, resulting in 

localized impacts to soft bottom benthos. Potential impacts to soft bottom benthic communities from 

seafloor sampling under this alternative would not be detectable and therefore would be negligible. 

The installation of COST wells and shallow test wells has the potential to impact benthic resources. 

For this impact analysis, the area of seafloor disturbance is assumed to average about 2 ha (5 ac) per well. 

If all of the COST wells and shallow test wells in the proposed action scenario were drilled, the total 

seafloor disturbance would be about 16 ha (40 ac), or about 0.00002 percent of the AOI. Requirements 

for mapping and avoidance, as well as photographic surveys of areas where bottom-founded 

appurtenances are to be deployed, would be required. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, 

BOEM would require site-specific information regarding potential sensitive benthic communities

(including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior 

to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.3, setbacks from sensitive 

bottom communities would be applied to activities within the AOI; such setbacks would likely include the 

current requirements for the Gulf of Mexico. These setbacks would include a 500-ft (152-m) setback for 

bottom-disturbing activities near an NMS and a “no activity” zone within 152 m (500 ft) of a verified live 

bottom. Site-specific plans will be reviewed individually and will likely apply similar setbacks as default 

buffer zones when G&G activities take place in the AOI. BOEM would use this information to ensure 

that physical impacts to sensitive benthic communities are avoided, and therefore the deepwater coral 

systems, the Blake Ridge chemosynthetic community, and hard/live bottom habitats would be protected 

from proposed bottom sampling activities. Potential impacts to sensitive benthic communities under this 

alternative would be negligible. 

Up to 16 ha (40 ac) of soft bottom communities could be impacted from the installation of COST 

wells and shallow test wells. Although this is only 0.00002 percent of the AOI, each well could impact

up to 2 ha (5 ac) of contiguous soft bottom community, which could result in changes in species 

composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning of soft bottom communities beyond that 

of normal variability, or ecological function within a species range. Therefore, the installation of COST 

wells and shallow test wells would result in minor impacts to soft bottom communities.

BOEM would implement requirements to ensure protection of sensitive benthic resources, including 

setbacks from sensitive bottom communities that would likely include what currently is required for the 

Gulf of Mexico for activities within the AOI. Given that BOEM would require prior approval of any 

G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment 

(e.g., ocean bottom cables, anchors, receivers) or structures (including requiring site-specific 

information), sensitive benthic resources would be avoided. Therefore, impacts to sensitive benthic 

resources would be negligible. 

There is also the potential for the installation of 7-38 bottom-founded monitoring buoys as part of the 

renewable energy program. Similarly, the placement and removal of bottom cables and anchors would
4-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

produce localized sediment disturbance to soft bottom communities. Anchors for either boat-shaped or 

discus-shaped buoys are expected to produce a footprint of about 0.55 m2 (6 ft2

) and an anchor sweep of 

about 3.4 ha (8.5 ac) (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011a). Total footprint area would range from 3.8-20.9 m2

(42-228 ft2

) for the anchors, while the sweep area would range from 23.8-129.2 ha (59.5-323 ac). If all of 

the monitoring buoys in the proposed action scenario were installed, the total seafloor disturbance would 

be about 129 ha (319 ac), or about 0.0002 percent of the AOI and 0.047 percent of the identified WEAs. 

The impact from anchoring and anchor sweep would be spread out over the identified WEAs, as typically 

only one to two buoys are installed per lease, which averages approximately 10 lease blocks. Each 

individual area of impact from a buoy anchor would be small (approximately 0.55 m2 [6 ft2

] each), and 

the anchor sweep area (3.4 ha [8.5 ac] per buoy) comprises 0.015 percent of an average lease area. In 

addition, the anchor sweep impacts are caused by the anchor chains or lines sweeping the soft bottom 

substrate; sediments are not removed, and only the surficial sediments and associated soft bottom 

community are impacted, not the soft bottom community present beneath the surficial sediments. No 

overall changes in species composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning of soft 

bottom communities are expected (Grannis, 2005). Therefore, potential impacts to soft bottom 

communities under this alternative would be negligible. 

Considering all seafloor-disturbing G&G activities, impacts to sensitive benthic resources 

(i.e., hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and chemosynthetic communities) are 

expected to be negligible. Impacts to soft bottom benthic communities would range from negligible to 

minor. 

Drilling Discharges

The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells would be drilled in the AOI during the

time period of the Programmatic EIS. The COST wells are drilled using conventional rotary drilling 

techniques, the same as routinely used for drilling oil and gas exploration and development wells. During 

the process, drilling fluid and cuttings would be discharged, disperse in the water column, and accumulate 

on the seafloor (NRC, 1983; Neff, 1987; Neff et al., 2000). Impacts to the benthic environment would 

include changes in sediment grain size and benthic community effects because of burial and smothering, 

anoxia, and sediment toxicity.

It is likely that both WBFs and SBFs would be used during drilling. Oil-based drilling fluids (OBFs) 

have the potential to be used where additional lubricity would be needed; however, OBFs are rarely used 

and more likely to be replaced by SBFs. WBFs are routinely discharged along with cuttings, while SBFs 

are recycled and only cuttings (along with small amounts of adhering SBF) are discharged. All drilling 

fluid discharges and retention on cuttings would be subject to regulatory limits established by USEPA. 

Assuming an average of 2,000 bbl of cuttings and 8,350 bbl of drilling fluid discharged per well, the total 

volume for one to three COST wells would range from 2,000-6,000 bbl of cuttings and 8,350-25,050 bbl 

of drilling fluid.

During the initial stage of drilling, a large-diameter surface hole is jetted a few hundred meters into 

the seafloor. At this stage, the cuttings and seawater used as drilling fluid would be discharged onto the 

seafloor. Excess cement slurry would also be released at the seafloor during casing installation for this 

portion of the drilling operations. Cement slurry components typically include cement mix and some of 

the same chemicals used in water-based drilling muds (Boehm et al., 2001). The main impacts would be 

burial and smothering of benthic organisms within several meters to tens of meters around the wellbore. 

Soft bottom sediments disturbed by cuttings, drilling fluids, and cement slurry would eventually be 

recolonized through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas.

After the marine riser is set, allowing the return of all drilling fluid and cuttings to the drilling rig for 

processing, all discharges would occur from the drilling rig. Discharges of WBF along with cuttings 

and/or cuttings with trace amounts of adhering SBF from the rig may affect benthic communities, 

primarily within several hundred meters of each wellsite. The fate and effects of WBF discharges have 

been reviewed by NRC (1983) and Neff (1987); impacts of SBF cuttings discharges have been 

synthesized by Neff et al. (2000). In general, cuttings with adhering SBFs tend to clump together and 

form cuttings piles close to the drillsite. Areas of SBF cuttings deposition may develop elevated organic 

carbon concentrations and anoxic conditions (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). Where SBF 

cuttings have been discharged from a series of wells, and cuttings tend to accumulate and concentrations 

have exceeded approximately 1,000 mg/kg, benthic infaunal communities have been adversely affected 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-23

by both the toxicity of the base fluid and organic enrichment (with resulting anoxia) (Neff et al., 2000). 

In these instances, infaunal numbers may increase and diversity may decrease as opportunistic species 

that tolerate low oxygen and high hydrogen sulfide (H2S) predominate (Continental Shelf Associates, 

Inc., 2006). The localized and limited drilling activity proposed under the G&G activity scenario strongly 

suggests that sizable cuttings accumulations and associated impacts would not occur.

Geophysically detectable drilling fluid and cuttings deposits may persist for 5 years or more around 

wellsites, particularly in areas where multiple wells have been drilled (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 

2006). Recovery of affected benthic communities must rely on either recruitment of new fauna from 

planktonic larvae or immigration into disturbed areas from adjacent undisturbed sediments. Recovery 

typically begins as soon as a discharge ceases (Neff, 2005). The precise timing of recovery is dependent 

upon a series of factors – the nature of the benthic community (e.g., species composition, reproductive 

triggers, larval mode), the physical characteristics of the benthic environment, and its chemical 

characteristics (Neff, 2005). Neff et al. (2000) indicate that within 3-5 years of the cessation of SBF

cuttings discharges, a complete recovery of the benthic community is possible; such recovery requires 

that the concentrations of SBF components (e.g., organics) in the sediments decrease to sufficiently low 

levels and that sediment oxygen concentrations increase to levels that can support benthic infauna.

The areal extent of impacts from drilling discharges during the proposed action would be small. 

Assuming a typical effect radius of 500 m (1,640 ft), the affected area around each wellsite would 

represent about 3 percent of the seafloor within an OCS lease block. Soft bottom communities are 

ubiquitous regionally, and the impact on soft bottom communities would be negligible on a regional 

basis. Given BOEM’s requirement for site-specific information regarding potential sensitive benthic 

communities and the application of setbacks from these resources as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.3, 

impacts from drilling discharges on hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and 

chemosynthetic communities of the AOI are expected to be negligible. 

4.2.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging 

from 1.2-7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean surface would disperse and weather. Volatile components 

of the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel used for operation of survey vessels are light and would float 

on the ocean surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel components to 

adhere to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink. Particulate matter 

contaminated with diesel fuel would eventually reach the benthos either within or outside the AOI, 

depending upon spill location, water depth, ambient currents, and sinking rate. However, given the 

relatively small size of the spill and the loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and dispersion, a 

small diesel fuel spill at the surface would be expected to have no effect on benthic communities. An 

accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to result in negligible impacts to benthic communities.

4.2.1.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 and includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The potential IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to 

affect benthic communities include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater 

noise from sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources; (2) seafloor disturbance and turbidity; 

(3) discharges of drilling fluid, drill cuttings, and other effluents from drilling rigs; (4) presence of 

structures; (5) accidental releases of trash and marine debris; (6) changes in coastal habitats because of

interactive effects of climate change along with impacts on calcification in plankton, corals, crustaceans, 

and other marine organisms because of ocean acidification; and (7) a risk of a crude oil spill from a well 

blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental 

events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). 
4-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, only five sources of potential 

impact to benthic communities have been identified in association with proposed G&G activities:

• noise sources (i.e., active acoustic sound sources);

• trash and debris; 

• seafloor disturbances;

• drilling discharges; and

• accidental fuel spills. 

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.3 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative A would result in negligible or minor impacts to benthic communities depending 

on the IPF. The following analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting 

synergistically with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a 

significant impact.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Long-term noise data for the AOI have not been published. For the purposes of this analysis, and in 

consideration of the documented increases in marine transportation volumes along the U.S. Atlantic 

Coast, it is assumed that underwater noise from vessel traffic and other anthropogenic sources within the 

AOI is increasing. Most ambient noise is broadband and encompasses virtually the entire frequency

spectrum, with vessel traffic recognized as a major contributor to ocean noise in the low-frequency bands 

between 5 and 500 Hz. Sound source measurements of 195 dB re 1 μPa2

/Hz at 1 m at 30 Hz have been 

documented for fast moving, large supertankers, with smaller fishing vessels characteristically producing 

sound source levels down to 140 dB re 1 μPa2

/Hz or less at 1 m (NRC, 2003a). Naturally occurring noise 

is typically generated from biological or physical processes (e.g., spray and bubbles from breaking waves) 

and is also a major contributor to ambient noise in the 500-100,000-Hz range. Wind typically produces 

noise associated with wave action and spray and is typically between ~100 Hz and 30 kHz, while wave 

generated noise typically is in the 1-20 Hz range. The associated sound levels for 5 kn wind noise would 

differ with water depth but would typically be between 51 and 56 dB re 1 μPa2

/Hz (Simmonds et al., 

2004).

Underwater noise from proposed G&G activities (i.e., active acoustic sound sources) has been shown 

to cause a negligible impact to benthic communities (Chapter 4.2.1.2). Active acoustic sound sources, 

including both airguns and electromechanical sources, and vessel and equipment noise from the proposed 

action would contribute to ambient noise levels within the AOI. Noise from G&G operations would be 

survey- or activity-based, occurring on a transient and intermittent basis over the period of interest. Oil 

and gas G&G airgun surveys have not been conducted in the AOI in decades. The airgun surveys

represent a different class of noise that are similar in ways to certain Naval sound sources, such as 

explosive testing and exercises involving the firing and detonation of live ordinance. Although there are 

significant differences in the acoustic properties of high energy airguns and military sonar, (such as 

waveforms, pulse duration, operational frequency, and sound energy direction) the impacts caused by the 

sound sources are similar.

Overall, Chapter 4.2.1.2 of this Programmatic EIS found there would be minor increases in ambient 

noise levels within specific portions of the AOI during G&G operations but; no significant impacts to 

benthic communities (e.g., severe mortality to sensitive benthic resources, or extensive alteration in 

species composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning of other benthic communities) 

No significant noise impacts to benthic communities were identified from the cumulative activities 

scenario. A similar conclusion was reached in the environmental analysis of cumulative effects in the 

AFTT (USDON, 2012). The AFTT represents a recent and comprehensive analysis of cumulative effects 

to benthic resources in the AOI. Its cumulative analysis considered the same suite of noise-producing 

activities and determined those activities to have a negligible impact based on an analysis of potential 

impacts to sediments, marine habitats, and marine invertebrates (Chapter 3.6.7). The BOEM 

Programmatic EIS also found negligible impacts to benthic resources associated with Alternative A. 

Further, impacts are expected to be spatially localized and short-term in duration. Therefore, the impacts 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-25

associated with Alternative A would result in a minor incremental increase in underwater noise and a 

negligible increase in impacts to benthic resources under the cumulative activities scenario. 

Trash and Debris

The accidental release of trash and debris can potentially occur from any of the ten activities 

identified in the cumulative impacts scenario. Vessel operators are required to comply with Federal laws 

and regulations, which implement the requirements of MARPOL 73/78, including Annex V. In addition, 

companies operating offshore have developed and implemented trash and debris reduction and improved 

handling practices over the last several years to reduce the amount of offshore trash that could potentially 

be lost to the marine environment. With compliance with existing Federal laws and regulations, the 

amount of trash and debris intentionally dumped offshore would be very limited, with only accidental loss 

of trash and debris expected. Some of the trash and debris accidentally lost could sink to the seafloor and 

have the potential to become entangled in or smother sessile benthic organisms. There is a remote 

possibility that the lost trash and debris would to sink to an area of the seafloor that included benthic 

resources; therefore, the impacts from cumulative activities within the AOI are expected to be negligible.

G&G vessel operations would similarly operate under Federal regulations, which implement

MARPOL and Annex V dumping restrictions. In addition, BOEM would develop guidance similar to 

BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012), 

which would include guidance for marine debris awareness (Appendix C). Only negligible impacts to 

benthic communities associated with the accidental release of trash and debris are expected under the 

cumulative activities scenario; the proposed action would potentially add a very small amount of 

accidentally released trash and debris. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action 

are expected to be a negligible incremental increase in benthic community impacts.

Seafloor Disturbance

BOEM would require site-specific information regarding benthic communities prior to approving 

most of the cumulative scenario activities (e.g., oil and gas development, renewable energy development, 

marine minerals use, geosequestration), while other agencies have responsibility over approval and 

licensing/permitting of LNG terminals, new cable infrastructure, and dredged material disposal. All of 

these activities involve seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures in the AOI. For those activities under their purview, BOEM would use this information and 

established setbacks from sensitive benthic communities to ensure that physical impacts to benthic 

communities are avoided; therefore, sensitive benthic communities would be protected from impacts 

associated with these activities. Consequently, cumulative impacts from oil and gas development, 

renewable energy development, marine minerals use, and geosequestration, and their associated impacts 

are expected to be negligible. However, BOEM requirements do not protect the resources from activities 

outside of BOEM jurisdiction (i.e., LNG terminals, new cable infrastructure, commercial and recreational 

fishing, dredged material disposal).

The areal extent of benthic communities that would potentially be affected by G&G activities under 

the proposed action is extremely small when compared to the total area of the AOI (0.00025%). Sensitive 

benthic communities are already protected via existing mitigation measures including the implementation 

of setbacks from these resources for bottom-disturbing activities. In addition, MPAs and NMSs 

(discussed in detail in Chapter 4.2.11) provide protection from impacts to benthic communities from 

commercial fishing operations. Alternative A would not contribute significantly to the impacts to benthic 

communities already caused by commercial and recreational fishing activities, the latter of which have 

been estimated to affect approximately 53 percent of the world’s continental shelf (Watling and Norse, 

1998). Therefore, the impacts associated with Alternative A would result in a negligible incremental 

increase in seafloor disturbance under the cumulative scenario.

Drilling Discharges

Cumulative scenario activities that would include discharges of drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and other 

effluents from drilling rigs (e.g., oil and gas development, geosequestration) would require the submittal 

and agency review of site-specific information regarding benthic communities prior to activity approval. 
4-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

In addition, setbacks from sensitive benthic communities would be implemented for all bottom-disturbing 

activities. Information regarding water intake and discharges related to drilling operations would be 

required to be submitted to the USEPA to obtain an NPDES permit prior to beginning drilling operations. 

These measures would ensure that physical impacts to sensitive benthic communities are avoided and that 

benthic resources are protected from impacts from cumulative scenario activities.

Drilling activities associated with the cumulative scenario would occur within soft bottom

communities. Soft bottom communities are ubiquitous regionally, and the impact on soft bottom 

communities would be anticipated to be negligible on a regional basis. Therefore, impacts to all benthic 

communities from discharges of drilling fluid, drill cuttings, and other effluents from drilling rigs under 

the cumulative scenario are expected to be negligible. 

Drilling discharges from proposed G&G activities (i.e., COST and shallow test wells) have been 

shown to cause a negligible impact to benthic communities (Chapter 4.2.1.2). Because impacts to 

benthic communities associated with drilling discharges from the cumulative activities scenario are 

expected to be negligible, the proposed action would add an extremely small area of seafloor disturbance 

to the cumulative area affected. Therefore, the impacts associated with Alternative A would result in a 

negligible incremental increase in seafloor impacts associated with drilling discharges.

Accidental Fuel Spills 

Chapter 3.6.1 outlines the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to benthic communities would depend on the location and size of the 

spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts would be analyzed 

in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted by an operator. Potential impacts 

from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be examined in the EA prior to the drilling 

of any wells. In addition, a project-specific EA would require an analysis of site-specific information 

regarding benthic communities and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts from drilling activities 

and potential accidental crude oil spills. With the required mitigation measures in place and with 

oversight of these activities by BSEE, as included in CFR Title 30 Chapter II, part 250, an accidental 

crude oil spill from an exploratory well is not anticipated; however, a spill still could occur. With these 

mitigation measures in place, the impacts to benthic communities from exploratory drilling operations 

would be negligible.

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including 

high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations, research vessels, and commercial and recreational fishing

activity would also contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk 

of collision and subsequent loss of fuel. The impacts of accidental fuel spills arising from a vessel 

collision under the cumulative scenario are expected to range from negligible to minor.

The likelihood of a fuel spill during survey operations or other G&G activities is considered to be 

remote and the associated impacts to the benthos are expected to be negligible (Chapter 4.2.1.3), even 

when considering that a small proportion of the heavier fuel components of a spill may adhere to 

particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink to the seafloor. It is also reasonable 

that the potential for fuel spills from vessels involved in the cumulative activities scenario would be 

considerably higher than that expected under the proposed action because of the magnitude of vessel 

activity in the AOI and the high number of vessel transits. Therefore, the incremental increase in 

potential for accidental fuel spills arising from vessel collision during G&G activities would be 

considered extremely small. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the low probability of a 

G&G activity-related fuel spill would result in a minor incremental increase in benthic community 

impacts under the cumulative scenario.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-27

4.2.2. Marine Mammals

4.2.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment

In the western North Atlantic Ocean, including the waters of the AOI, there are 38 species of marine 

mammals representing three taxonomic orders: Cetacea (baleen whales, toothed whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises), Sirenia (manatee), and Carnivora (true seals) (Waring et al., 2010). A listing of species, 

including current status, occurrence, and auditory range, is provided in Table 4-4. 

All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA of 1972. Some species are further protected 

under the ESA of 1973. Under the ESA, a species is considered endangered if it is “in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A species is considered threatened if it “is 

likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.”

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the ‘take” of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by 

U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into 

the U.S. Some marine mammal species or specific stocks (defined as a group of nonspecific individuals 

that are managed separately [Wang, 2002]) may be designated as strategic under the MMPA, which 

requires the jurisdictional agency (NMFS or FWS) to impose additional protection measures. A stock is 

considered strategic if

• direct human-caused mortality exceeds its Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level 

(defined as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortality, that can 

be removed from the stock while allowing the stock to reach or maintain its optimum 

sustainable population level);

• it is listed under the ESA; 

• it is declining and likely to be listed under the ESA; or

• it is designated as depleted under the MMPA.

The following chapters provide a brief description of each marine mammal species or species group 

(where appropriate), including current status, distribution, and behavior. Species that are listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA are discussed within a separate chapter from nonlisted species.

4.2.2.1.1. Threatened and Endangered Species

Seven marine mammal species that occur in the AOI are federally listed as endangered species 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2011e). These include five baleen whales (NARW, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, 

and humpback whale), one toothed whale (sperm whale), and the Florida subspecies of the West Indian 

manatee (Waring et al., 2010; USDOC, NMFS, 2011e). 

North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 

The NARW is the only member of the baleen whale family Balaenidae found in north Atlantic 

waters. It is medium in size when compared to other baleen whale species, with adult size ranging from 

14-17 m (46-56 ft) (USDOC, NMFS, 2005).

Status

The NARW is considered one of the most critically endangered whales (Jefferson et al., 2008). It is 

listed as endangered under the ESA, and the western Atlantic stock is classified as strategic because the 

average annual human-related mortality and serious injury exceeds PBR (Waring et al., 2010). Today, 

the minimum population size is approximately 361 individuals (Waring et al., 2010). Continued threats 

to the NARW population include commercial fishing interactions, vessel strikes, underwater noise, 

habitat degradation, and predators (USDOC, NMFS, 2005; Waring et al., 2010).

In 1994, three critical habitats for the NARW were designated by NMFS along the eastern coast of 

the U.S. (Federal Register, 1994b). These include Cape Cod Bay/Massachusetts Bay, Great South 

Channel, and selected areas off the southeastern U.S. (Figure 4-7). In 2009, NMFS received a petition to 
4-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

expand the critical habitat, and the agency is continuing its ongoing rulemaking process. NMFS initially 

had the expectation that a proposed critical habitat rule would be submitted for publication in the 

Federal Register in the second half of 2011 (Federal Register, 2010f); as of October 2013, expansion of 

the NARW critical habitat remains under review. 

In addition to the critical habitat, SMAs for reducing ship strikes of NARWs have been designated in 

the U.S. and Canada (Figure 4-7). All vessels greater than 19.8 m (65 ft) in overall length must operate 

at speeds of 10 kn or less within these areas during specific time periods (Table 4-5). 

Distribution

The NARW is a migratory species that is usually found within waters of the western North Atlantic 

between 20° and 60° N latitude. Generally, individual NARWs undergo seasonal coastal migrations from 

summer feeding grounds off eastern Canada and the U.S. northeast coast to winter calving grounds off the 

U.S. southeast coast (Figure 4-8). 

Recent sightings data also report a few NARWs as far as Newfoundland, the Labrador Basin, and 

southeast of Greenland (Waring et al., 2010; Mellinger et al., 2011). Research results suggest the 

existence of six major congregation areas for NARWs: the coastal waters of the southeastern U.S.; the 

Great South Channel; Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine; Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays; the Bay of 

Fundy; and the Scotian Shelf (Waring et al., 2010). Movements of individuals within and between these 

congregation areas are extensive, and data show distant excursions, including into deep water off the 

continental shelf (Mate et al., 1997; Baumgartner and Mate, 2005; Mellinger et al., 2011). Using acoustic 

survey methods, Morano et al. (2012) found that NARWs are present in Massachusetts Bay year-round 

for at least 24 percent of every month, suggesting that the whales may be using the Bay not only as a 

migratory corridor to and from Cape Cod Bay but also as nonmigratory habitat. The North Atlantic Right 

Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) program showed that some individuals may stay in the northern Gulf 

of Maine during the winter. Further, in 2008 and 2009 NARWs were sighted during the NARWSS 

program off Jeffrey’s and Cashes Ledge, Stellwagen Bank, and Jordan Basin from December to February 

(Khan et al., 2009, 2010). The groupings of individual NARWs within these congregation areas is likely 

to be a function of acceptable prey distribution, since NARWs must locate and exploit extremely dense 

patches of zooplankton to feed efficiently (Mayo and Marx, 1990). These dense zooplankton patches are 

likely a primary characteristic of the spring, summer, and fall NARW habitats (Kenney et al., 1986, 

1995). A recently published study of NARW distribution and seasonal occurrence in nearshore waters of 

the coast of New Jersey (shoreline to approximately 37 km [20 nmi]), concluded that although not large 

concentrations of NARW are present, individual whales use the waters off New Jersey regularly as a 

migratory corridor and occasionally for other activities (Whitt et al., 2013). In other words, NARWs can 

be present year round off New Jersey, using the area for both for migratory and nonmigratory purposes. 

Based on the acoustic monitoring recordings from the study, peak detections of NARWs were recorded in 

winter and spring (March to June), which could be attributed to a higher number of NARWs present in 

the area or an increase in vocalization, or both (Whitt et al., 2013). BOEM is aware of additional 

unpublished studies that are analyzing NARW distribution within the Mid-Atlantic that preliminarily 

suggest some NARW may be utilizing the area year round and have been detected up to 63 miles 

offshore. Future published data will be incorporated into site-specific NEPA evaluations.

Behavior 

North Atlantic right whales are usually observed in groups of less than 12 individuals, and most often 

as single individuals or pairs. Larger groups may be observed in feeding or breeding areas (Jefferson et 

al., 2008). NARWs feed on zooplankton (e.g., calanoid copepods) generally by skimming through 

concentrated patches of prey at or below the sea surface. The typical reproductive cycle in mature female 

NARWs is 3 years between births. The age at sexual maturity is estimated at 9 or 10, and gestation length 

is about 12 months; calves nurse for almost 12 months.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

North Atlantic right whale vocalizations are primarily low-frequency (below 1,000 Hz), with some 

sounds up to 1,500-2,000 Hz (Kenney, 2002). Moans, groans, belches, and pulses have most of their 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-29

acoustic energy below 500 Hz. Some vocalizations will occasionally reach up to 4 kHz 

(http://dosits.org/audio/marinemammals/baleenwhales/rightwhale/). While there are no direct hearing 

data available (Ketten, 2000), NARWs are classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine 

mammal hearing group (7 Hz-22 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007). However, Parks et al. (2007) looked at 

anatomical predictions of hearing in the NARW and stated “the total hearing range for the North Atlantic

right whale predicted from measurements presented here is 10 Hz-22 kHz, with functional ranges 

probably being 15 Hz-18 kHz.” 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

The blue whale is the largest cetacean, although its size range overlaps with that of fin and sei whales. 

The northern hemisphere subspecies (B.m. musculus) is known to occur within the AOI. Most adults of 

this subspecies are 23-27 m (75-90 ft) in length (Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Status

The northern hemisphere subspecies of the blue whale is listed as an endangered species. There are 

insufficient data to determine the status of this stock and population within the U.S. Currently, the 

number of blue whales in the North Atlantic Ocean is estimated at around 1,000 individuals (International 

Whaling Commission [IWC], 2011a). This stock of the blue whale is listed as strategic because the 

species is listed as endangered under the ESA (Waring et al., 2010). There is no designated critical 

habitat for this species within the AOI.

Distribution

The blue whale is considered by NMFS as an occasional visitor in U.S. Atlantic EEZ waters, which 

may represent the current southern limit of its feeding range (Waring et al., 2010). In the western North 

Atlantic Ocean, the blue whale’s range extends from the Arctic to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, although it is 

frequently sighted off eastern Canada (e.g., Newfoundland) (Waring et al., 2010). Using Navy asset 

hydrophone arrays, Clark and Gagnon (2004) identified blue whales as far south as Bermuda (but rarely 

further south). Clark and Gagnon (2004) showed that blue and fin whales, two species for which there are 

no known breeding or calving grounds, were detected by singing during summer months at >70° N 

latitudes where they are known to feed. These singing blue and fin whales show a strong preference for 

shelf breaks, sea mounts, or other areas where food resources are known to occur, even during summer 

months. These data are consistent with existing evidence indicating that blue or fin whales do not have 

specific breeding or calving areas. Yochem and Leatherwood (1985) suggested an occurrence of this 

species south to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. In general, the blue whale’s range and seasonal 

distribution is governed by the availability of prey (USDOC, NMFS, 1998a). 

Behavior 

Blue whales are usually observed alone or in pairs (Jefferson et al., 2008). Scattered aggregations 

may develop on prime feeding grounds. Their diet consists primarily of krill (euphausiids), and their 

depth distribution is usually associated with feeding (Sears, 2002). Blue whales reach sexual maturity at 

5-15 years, and mating in the northern hemisphere occurs in late fall and throughout the winter, although 

no specific breeding ground has been discovered (Sears, 2002).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Blue whales produce a variety of low-frequency sounds in the 10-200 Hz band (Stafford et al., 1998, 

1999a,b, 2001; Frankel, 2002). Short sequences of rapid frequency modulated calls below 90 Hz are 

associated with animals in social groups (Moore et al., 1999; Mellinger and Clark, 2003). Most blue 

whale vocalizations are low-frequency, ranging from 17-20 Hz. Sound intensity of blue whale 

vocalizations are the loudest of any animal (188 dB) (Sears, 2002). While there are no direct hearing data 

available (Ketten, 2000), blue whales are classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine 

mammal hearing group (7 Hz-22 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).
4-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

The fin whale is the second largest species of whale (USDOC, NMFS, 2010a). Some authors 

recognize separate northern and southern hemisphere subspecies, although this designation is not widely 

accepted (Jefferson et al., 2008). Adult fin whales in the northern hemisphere may reach a length of 

approximately 24 m (80 ft).

Status

Fin whales off the eastern U.S. and eastern Canada are believed to constitute a single stock (Western 

North Atlantic stock) (Waring et al., 2010). The species is currently listed as endangered under the ESA. 

The Western North Atlantic stock is classified as strategic because of its listing under the ESA. There is 

no designated critical habitat for the fin whale (USDOC, NMFS, 2010a).

Distribution

The fin whale is found primarily within temperate and polar latitudes (Figure 4-9). Seasonal 

migration patterns within its range remain undetermined (2010). Singing fin whales were found present 

in Bermuda from early September through mid-May (Clark and Gagnon, 2004). Fin whales were also 

seen in the mid-ocean near the Mid-Atlantic ridge from late fall through early winter. Blue and fin whale 

species have no known breeding or calving grounds but have been found singing during summer months 

at >70° N latitudes where they are known to feed. These observations of singing in high latitudes during 

months when food is abundant, though contrary to general knowledge, were consistent from year to year 

and most likely represent normal activities (Clark and Gagnon, 2004). The fin whale is the most common 

whale sighted in northwest Atlantic waters from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Maine during surveys 

conducted from 1978 through 1982, with fin whales representing 46 percent of all sightings (USDOC, 

NMFS, 2010a; Waring et al., 2010).

Behavior 

Fin whales are observed singly or in groups of two to seven individuals. In the North Atlantic, fin 

whales are often seen in large mixed-species feeding aggregations including humpback whales, minke 

whales, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Jefferson et al., 2008). Fin whales feed on zooplankton 

(euphausiids and copepods); small schooling fishes such as capelin, herring, mackerel, sandlance, and 

blue whiting; and squids (Jefferson et al., 2008). USDOC, NMFS (2010a) reports summer feeding 

grounds mostly between 41°20' and 51°00' N latitude (shore to 1,829 m [6,000 ft]). Fin whale mating and 

births occur in the winter (November-March), with reproductive activity peaking in December and 

January.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Fin whale vocalizations are low-frequency, generally below 70 Hz but ranging up to 750 Hz 

(Clark et al., 2002; USDON, 2007). Estimated source levels are as high as 180-190 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m 

(Patterson and Hamilton, 1964; Watkins et al., 1987; Thompson et al., 1992; McDonald et al., 1995; 

Charif et al., 2002; Croll et al., 2002). Short sequences of rapid frequency modulated calls in the 20-70 

Hz bands are associated with social groups (McDonald et al., 1995). The most typical vocalizations are 

long, patterned sequences of low and infrasonic pulses in the 18-35 Hz range. This sound is referred to as 

the “20-Hz pulse” (Clark et al., 2002). While there are no direct hearing data available (Ketten, 2000), fin 

whales are classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group (7 Hz22 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

The humpback whale is medium in size, and adults range from 15-18 m (50-60 ft). The body is more 

robust than other rorqual whales (Balaenoptera spp.), and humpbacks are distinguished from all other 

large whale species by their long flippers, which are approximately one-third the length of the body.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-31

Status

Distinct geographic forms of humpback whales are not widely recognized, though genetic evidence 

suggests there are several subspecies (e.g., North Atlantic, Southern Hemisphere, and North Pacific 

subspecies) (USDOC, NMFS, 1991; Waring et al., 2010). In 2000, NMFS Atlantic Stock Assessment 

Team reclassified the western North Atlantic humpback whale as a separate and discrete management 

stock (Gulf of Maine stock) (Waring et al., 2010).

The humpback whale is currently listed as endangered under the ESA. The Gulf of Maine stock is 

classified as strategic because of its listing under the ESA. The NMFS has recently estimated the 

humpback population in the western North Atlantic as 7,698 individuals (4,894 males and 2,804 females) 

(Waring et al., 2010). No critical habitat has been designated for the humpback whale.

Distribution

The humpback whale is a cosmopolitan species that may be found from the equator to subpolar 

latitudes, less commonly in the Arctic. Some individuals are found year-around at certain locations 

(e.g., Gulf of Maine), while others display highly migratory patterns. Humpback whales are generally 

found within continental shelf areas and oceanic islands. Most humpback whales in the western North 

Atlantic Ocean migrate to the West Indies to mate (e.g., Dominican Republic); however, some whales do 

not make the annual winter migration (Waring et al., 2010). Sightings data show that humpback whales 

traverse through coastal waters of the southeastern U.S., including the AOI (Waring et al., 2010) 

(Figure 4-10).

Swingle et al. (1993) and Barco et al. (2002) reported humpback sightings off Delaware Bay and 

Chesapeake Bay during the winter, which suggests the Mid-Atlantic region may also serve as wintering 

grounds for some Atlantic humpback whales. This region has also been suggested as important area for 

juvenile humpbacks (Wiley et al., 1995).

Behavior 

Humpback whales feed on krill and small schooling fishes (Jefferson et al., 2008). In New England 

waters, humpback whales prey upon herring, sand lance, and euphausiids (Paquet et al., 1997). 

Humpback whales use unique behaviors such as bubble nets, bubble clouds, and flickering their flukes 

and flippers, to herd and capture prey (USDOC, NMFS, 1991). They are also one of the few species of 

baleen whales to utilize cooperative feeding techniques. The age at sexual maturity is between 4 and 

6 years (USDOC, NMFS, 1991), and gestation length is 11 months; calves are nursed for 6-10 months.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Humpback vocalizations are complex and range from low-frequency (40-5,000 Hz) to higher 

frequency (2-14 kHz) sounds (Winn and Reichley, 1985). While there are no direct hearing data available 

(Ketten, 2000), humpback whales are classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine 

mammal hearing group (7 Hz-22 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007). Houser et al. (2001) developed a 

mathematical function to describe the frequency sensitivity by integrating position along the humpback 

basilar membrane with known mammalian data. The results predict a typical U-shaped audiogram with 

sensitivity to frequencies from 700 Hz-10 kHz, with maximum sensitivity between 2 and 6 kHz. 

Humpbacks have been observed reacting to low-frequency industrial noises with estimated received 

levels of 115-124 dB (Malme et al., 1985) and have been observed reacting to conspecific calls at 

received levels as low as 102 dB (Frankel et al., 1995).

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

The sei whale is the third largest whale (following the blue and fin whales), with adult length ranging 

from 16 to 20 m (52 to 66 ft). It is very similar in appearance to fin and Bryde’s whales.
4-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Status

There are two classified sei whale stocks within the Atlantic: the Nova Scotia stock and the Labrador 

Sea stock. The range of the Nova Scotia stock includes the continental shelf waters of the northeastern 

U.S. and extends northeastward to south of Newfoundland.

The sei whale is currently listed as endangered under the ESA. The Nova Scotia stock is classified as 

strategic because of its listing under the ESA. There is no current population estimate of sei whales in the 

western North Atlantic Ocean, though survey data suggest that the Nova Scotia stock size is around 

386 individuals (Waring et al., 2010). There is no designated critical habitat for this species.

Distribution

The sei whale is a cosmopolitan and highly migratory species (HMS) that is found from temperature 

to subpolar regions, but it appears to be more restricted to mid-latitude temperate zones than other 

rorquals (Balaenoptera sp. and Megaptera novaeangliae) (Reeves et al., 2002; Shirihai and Jarrett, 2006; 

Jefferson et al., 2008). Sei whales are commonly sighted off Nova Scotia, the Gulf of Maine, and 

Georges Bank in spring and summer (Waring et al., 2010). Data suggest a major portion of the Nova 

Scotia stock is centered in waters north of the AOI, at least during the feeding season (Waring et al., 

2010). Within this range, the sei whale is often found near the continental shelf edge region. This general 

offshore pattern of sei whale distribution is disrupted during episodic incursions into more shallow and 

inshore waters (Figure 4-11). 

Behavior 

Sei whales are largely planktivorous, feeding primarily on euphausiids and copepods, but they will 

feed on small schooling fishes as well (Jefferson et al., 2008; Waring et al., 2010). Like NARWs, they 

generally skim copepods, though they will lunge and gulp on occasion like other rorqual species. Groups 

of two to five individuals are most commonly seen. Calving occurs in midwinter within the low latitude 

portions of the species’ range (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Recorded vocalizations of sei whales range from 432 Hz-3.5 kHz (Thompson et al., 1979; Knowlton 

et al., 1991; McDonald et al., 2005). While there are no direct hearing data available (Ketten, 2000), sei 

whales are classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group 

(7 Hz-22 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

The sperm whale is the largest toothed cetacean, with adult length ranging from 12-18 m (40-60 ft). 

They are also the most sexually dimorphic whale in body length and weight (Whitehead, 2002). The 

most distinctive feature of the sperm whale is a massive and specialized nasal complex.

Status

Sperm whales within the northern Atlantic are classified in one stock (North Atlantic). It remains 

unresolved whether the northwestern Atlantic population is discrete from the northeastern Atlantic 

population (Waring et al., 2010).

The sperm whale is currently listed as endangered under the ESA. The Northern Atlantic stock is 

classified as strategic because of its listing under the ESA. According to Waring et al. (2010), the current 

population estimate for the western North Atlantic (U.S East Coast) is 4,804 individuals, including 

2,607 individuals in the northern U.S. Atlantic and 2,197 individuals in the southern U.S. Atlantic. There 

is no critical habitat for this stock (USDOC, NMFS, 2010b).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-33

Distribution

Sperm whales are cosmopolitan in their distribution, ranging from tropical latitudes to pack ice edges 

in both hemispheres (Jefferson et al., 2008). Generally, only male sperm whales venture to the extreme 

low latitudes. In the U.S. Atlantic EEZ waters, there appears to be a distinct seasonal cycle (Waring 

et al., 2010). In winter, sperm whales concentrate east and northeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In 

spring, the distribution center moves northward to waters east of Delaware and Virginia but spreads 

throughout the central portion of the MAB to the southern portion of Georges Bank. In summer, the 

distribution also includes continental slope and shelf waters as far as southern New England 

(Figure 4-12). In the fall, sperm whale occurrence on the continental shelf and shelf edge is highest in 

the MAB.

Behavior 

Sperm whales are usually found in medium to large “family unit” groups of 20-30 females and their 

young. Young males leave their natal unit group at an age of 4-21 years and form loose aggregations 

called “bachelor schools” with other males of approximately the same age. Older males are usually 

solitary (Whitehead, 2002). Sperm whales feed primarily on cephalopods (squids and octopuses) and 

demersal and mesopelagic fishes (Whitehead, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008; USDOC, NMFS, 2010b). The 

age at sexual maturity (between 7 and 13 years for females and in the twenties for males) is much older 

than for most whales (USDOC, NMFS, 2010b). Gestation length is between 12 and 15 months, and 

lactation extends almost 2 years. The lifespan has been estimated to be 60 years or more (Rice, 1989).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Sperm whale vocalizations range from 2.5-60 kHz. They produce broadband clicks with energy 

below 100 Hz-30 kHz (Madsen et al., 2002; Thode et al., 2002). Regular click trains and creaks have 

been recorded from foraging sperm whales and may be produced by echolocation (Madsen et al., 2002; 

Thode et al., 2002). Sperm whales are classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine 

mammal hearing group (150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007). Audiograms from a sperm whale calf 

showed an auditory range of 2.5-60 kHz, with best hearing sensitivity between 5 and 20 kHz (Ridgway 

and Carder, 2001). However, the measurements taken from one stranded sperm whale showed a lower 

limit of hearing, near 100 Hz (Gordon et al., 1996).

West Indian Manatee (Florida subspecies) (Trichechus manatus latirostris) 

The Florida subspecies of the West Indian manatee is the only sirenian that occurs along the eastern 

coast of the U.S. The average adult West Indian manatee ranges from 3 to 4 m (10 to 13 ft) in length and 

between 362 and 544 kg (800 and 1,200 lb) in weight (USDOI, FWS, 2001, 2007).

Status

The Florida manatee is currently listed as endangered under the ESA, a “strategic stock” under the 

MMPA, and vulnerable under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The species is 

also protected under the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. The majority of the Atlantic population of the 

Florida manatee is located in eastern Florida and southern Georgia (Waring et al., 2010) and managed 

within four distinct regional management units: Atlantic Coast (northeast Florida to the Florida Keys), 

Upper St. Johns River (St. Johns River, south of Palakta), Northwest (Florida Panhandle to Hernando 

County), and Southwest (Pasco County to Monroe County) (USDOI, FWS, 2001, 2007). The Atlantic 

Coast unit is the most relevant to the AOI. Critical habitat was designated for the Florida manatee on 

September 24, 1976 (Federal Register, 1976) and includes inland waterways in four northeastern Florida 

coastal counties (Brevard, Duval, St. Johns, and Nassau) that are adjacent to the AOI (Figure 4-13). 

Distribution

Within the northwestern Atlantic, manatees occur in coastal marine, brackish, and freshwater areas 

from Florida to Virginia, with occasional extralimital sightings as far north as Rhode Island (Jefferson 
4-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

et al., 2008). Because they have little tolerance for cold, they are generally restricted to the inland and 

coastal waters of peninsular Florida during the winter, where they shelter in or near sources of warm 

water (springs, industrial effluents, and other warm water sites) (USDOI, FWS, 2001, 2007).

Behavior 

Manatees are herbivorous, feeding on a wide array of aquatic (freshwater and marine) plants such as 

water hyacinths and marine seagrasses. They generally prefer shallow seagrass beds, especially areas 

with access to deep channels. Preferred coastal and riverine habitats (e.g., near the mouths of coastal 

rivers) are also used for resting, mating, and calving (USDOI, FWS, 2001, 2007).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Recent studies estimate the maximum hearing range for the manatee to be from 0.4-46 kHz, but 

primarily within the 3-5 kHz range (Steel and Morris, 1982; Thomson and Richardson, 1995; Gerstein et 

al., 1999; Reynolds and Powell, 2002; Niezrecki et al., 2003; O’Shea and Poche, 2006; USDON, 2007). 

Manatee vocalizations, including chirps and squeaks, range between 0.6 and 16 kHz, although most 

vocalizations occur between 2.5 and 5 kHz (Schevill and Watkins, 1965; Bengtson and Fitzgerald, 1985; 

Nowacek et al., 2003; Miksis-Olds and Tyack, 2009). Previous studies describing West Indian manatee

vocalizations indicate the use of two different vocalization types: tonal harmonic calls and broader-band, 

less tonal calls.

4.2.2.1.2. Nonlisted Marine Mammals

There are 31 marine mammal species that may occur in Atlantic OCS waters that are not classified as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA (Table 4-4), comprising two mysticete (baleen) whales, 

26 odontocete (toothed) whales and dolphins, and four pinnipeds (seals). A brief discussion of each 

species or species group (where appropriate) is provided below.

Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera brydei) 

The Bryde’s whale is a large rorqual that may reach a length of 16.5 m (54 ft). It is similar in size and 

appearance to the sei whale. 

Status

Bryde’s whales within the northwest Atlantic are not classified within a management stock. The 

species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

Distribution

Bryde's whales have a circumglobal distribution in tropical and subtropical waters. In the western 

Atlantic Ocean, Bryde's whales are reported from off the southeastern U.S. (Virginia to Florida) and 

through the southern West Indies to Cabo Frio, Brazil (Cummings, 1985; Waring et al., 2010). The 

southeastern U.S., including the AOI, is considered to be a “secondary range” for this species (Jefferson 

et al., 2008).

Behavior 

Bryde’s whales are generally observed alone or in pairs, although they do aggregate into groups of 

10-20 individuals on feeding grounds (Jefferson et al., 2008). They primarily feed on schooling fishes, 

though they may also feed on squids, krill, and other invertebrates. The Bryde’s whale does not have a 

well-defined breeding season in most areas, and births can take place throughout the year (Jefferson et al., 

2008).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-35

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Bryde’s whale vocalizations are low-frequency, ranging from 20-900 Hz (Cummings, 1985; Oleson 

et al., 2003). The species is classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal

hearing group (7 Hz-22 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Common Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata acutorostrata) 

The minke whale is a small mysticete that is divided into two species: the common minke whale and 

the Antarctic minke whale. The common minke whale is further divided into three subspecies. The 

subspecies B. a. acutorostrata occurs within the North Atlantic. Adult common minke whales reach a 

length of 8.8 m (29 ft). 

Status

Minke whales off the eastern coast of the U.S. are included within the Canadian East Coast stock, 

which ranges from the Davis Strait, Canada (45o W), to the Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 2010). There 

are insufficient data to determine the status of minke whales in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. It is not listed as 

endangered under the ESA, and the stock is not classified as strategic.

Distribution

The minke whale has a cosmopolitan distribution and occurs in polar, temperate, and tropical waters. 

Minke whales are generally found within waters of the continental shelf. It is considered common within 

the U.S. Atlantic EEZ during summer months and largely absent during winter, although sightings data 

suggest its distribution within this area is largely centered in New England and Canadian waters north of 

the AOI.

Behavior 

Group sizes of minke whales are generally small (one to three individuals), but larger groups are 

observed on feeding grounds. They feed on small invertebrates and small schooling fishes and larger fish 

species. Calving occurs in low latitude areas during the winter.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Minke whale vocalizations are low-frequency, ranging from 80 Hz-20 kHz range (Winn and Perkins, 

1976; Frankel, 2002). It is classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal

hearing group (7 Hz-22 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Beaked Whales 

Five species of whales of the family Ziphiidae may occur within the AOI. These include one species 

of the genus Ziphius (Cuvier’s beaked whale [Z. cavirostris]), and four species of the genus Mesoplodon

(Blainville's beaked whale [M. densirostris], Gervais' beaked whale [M. europaeus], Sowerby's beaked 

whale [M. bidens], and True's beaked whale [M. mirus]). Beaked whales are medium-sized cetaceans 

with body lengths of 4.6-10 m (15-33 ft) characterized by reduced dentition, elongated rostrum, and 

accentuated cranial vertex (associated with sound production and modification) (Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Mesoplodon beaked whales are difficult to identify to the species level at sea, and much of the available 

characterization for them is to genus level only (Waring et al., 2010).

Status

All beaked whale species known to occur within the northwest Atlantic are not listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA or classified as strategic stocks (Waring et al., 2010). Cuvier’s beaked whales 

and the four mesoplodont beaked whale species are separated into unique management stocks.
4-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Distribution

Cuvier’s and Mesoplodon spp. beaked whale sightings within the northwest Atlantic during shipboard 

and aerial surveys have usually been along the continental shelf edge in the Mid-Atlantic region between 

Nova Scotia and central Florida, primarily in late spring and summer (Waring et al., 2010). Along the 

Atlantic Coast of the U.S., beaked whales may be associated with the Gulf Stream and warm-core eddies 

(Waring et al., 1992).

Behavior 

Beaked whales are usually observed singly or in small groups. As a group they are poorly known but 

are thought to be deep-diving animals. They feed at depth on deepwater squids and fishes (Mead, 2002).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Very little information on the sound production of beaked whales is available; existing data suggest 

their range may be between 1 and 48 kHz (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1971; Johnson et al., 2004). Beaked 

whales as a group are classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing 

group (150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Stenella Dolphins

Five species of oceanic dolphins of the genus Stenella occur within the northwestern Atlantic. These 

include the pantropical spotted dolphin (S. attenuata), striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba), Clymene dolphin 

(S. clymene), Atlantic spotted dolphin (S. frontalis), and spinner dolphin (S. longirostris). Stenella body 

length ranges between 1.7 and 2.6 m (5.6 and 8.5 ft) (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

Each western Atlantic Stenella species is managed as a separate Western North Atlantic stock. None 

of these species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and none of the management stocks 

are classified as strategic (Waring et al., 2010).

Distribution

The five species of western Atlantic Stenella occur within both coastal and oceanic waters from 40° S 

to 40° N (Perrin and Gilpatrick, 1994; Perrin and Hohn, 1994). Atlantic spotted, pantropical spotted, 

Clymene, and spinner dolphins are distributed primarily in tropical and subtropical waters, whereas the 

distribution of striped dolphins extends from tropical to temperate waters (Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Generally, Stenella occur along the continental shelf edge and slope within their range. The Atlantic 

spotted dolphin, however, may also occur on the continental shelf in some areas, including the AOI 

(Jefferson et al., 2008; Waring et al., 2010).

Behavior 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are often observed in small groups of generally less than 50 individuals. 

They feed on a wide variety of mesopelagic fishes and squids, as well as on benthic invertebrates (Perrin, 

2002a; Jefferson et al., 2008). Little is known about their life history, though tropical populations are 

thought to have protracted breeding seasons.

Pantropical spotted dolphins are gregarious and commonly form aggregations ranging from less than 

100 to thousands of individuals. Offshore individuals feed on small epi- and mesopelagic fishes, squids, 

and crustaceans. Individuals on the continental shelf are thought to feed on larger pelagic and demersal

fishes (Perrin, 2002b; Jefferson et al., 2008).

Clymene dolphins are found in groups of less than 200 individuals, generally segregated by age and 

sex (Jefferson et al., 2008). They are thought to feed on small fishes and squids, primarily at night 

(Jefferson, 2002).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-37

Spinner dolphins are highly gregarious and form large groups ranging in size from a few individuals 

to several thousand (Perrin, 2002c; Jefferson et al., 2008). They commonly school together with other 

cetacean species (Perrin, 2002c). Spinner dolphins feed on small midwater fishes, squids, and 

crustaceans, usually at night.

Striped dolphins feed on small fishes and cephalopods (Perrin et al., 1994). They are somewhat 

gregarious, often forming pods of 20 or more individuals, and are active at the surface (Whitehead et al., 

1998; Archer, 2002). Baird et al. (1997) reported that striped dolphins can be found in groups of 

100-500 individuals and are sometimes associated with other species of marine mammals and seabirds. 

The pod composition of striped dolphins may vary and can include adult males and females as well as 

juveniles (Perrin et al., 1994). They feed primarily on a wide variety of small midwater and demersal

fishes and squids (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Stenella species produce sounds that range from 0.1-160 kHz (Richardson et al., 1995). As a group, 

Stenella dolphins are classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing 

group (150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales (Kogia breviceps and K. sima) 

Pygmy (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf (K. sima) sperm whales are small cetaceans with blunt squarish 

heads and underslung lower jaws, similar to the sperm whale. Pygmy sperm whales attain body lengths 

of approximately 4 m (13 ft), whereas dwarf sperm whales reach lengths of approximately 3 m (10 ft) 

(Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are difficult to differentiate at sea (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1989; 

Würsig et al., 2000b), and sightings of either species are often categorized as Kogia sp. There are 

insufficient data to determine the population status of Kogia sp. in the western U.S. Atlantic EEZ. These 

species are not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, and there is insufficient information 

with which to assess population trends. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales within the western North 

Atlantic are placed within separate Western North Atlantic stocks. They are not classified as strategic 

stocks.

Distribution

Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales appear to be distributed worldwide in temperate to tropical waters 

(Caldwell and Caldwell, 1989; McAlpine, 2002). Sightings of these animals in the western North 

Atlantic occur in oceanic waters between Maine and central Florida (Waring et al., 2010).

Behavior 

Group sizes of pygmy and dwarf sperm whales tend to be small, generally less than six individuals. 

Very little is known about the species except from studies on stranded individuals. Studies on stranded 

animals suggest that these species feed on cephalopods, deep-sea fishes, and shrimps (Jefferson et al., 

2008).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

A study on a pygmy sperm whale suggests an underwater hearing range between 90 and 150 kHz 

(Carder et al., 1995; Ridgway and Carder, 2001). No information is available on sound production in 

dwarf sperm whales. They are classified within the high-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal

hearing group (200 Hz-180 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).
4-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 

The harbor porpoise is the only porpoise species found in the Atlantic. It is a small, stocky cetacean 

with a blunt, short-beaked head. There are four subspecies, with P. p. phocoena in the North Atlantic. 

This subspecies reaches a body length of 1.9 m (6 ft) (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise is found in U.S. and Canadian Atlantic 

waters. There are insufficient data to determine the status of this stock in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. It is not 

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; however, it is classified as a strategic stock (Waring et 

al., 2010).

Distribution

The harbor porpoise is usually found in shallow waters of the continental shelf, although they 

occasionally travel over deeper offshore waters. Waring et al. (2010) reports that harbor porpoises are 

generally concentrated along the continental shelf within the northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of 

Fundy region during summer months (July-September). During fall (October-December) and spring 

(April-June), they are widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine. During winter (January-March), they 

range from New Brunswick, Canada, to North Carolina.

Behavior 

Most harbor porpoise groups are small, usually between five and six individuals, although they 

aggregate into large groups for feeding or migration (Jefferson et al., 2008). They eat a wide variety of 

fishes and cephalopods.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

An auditory study of harbor porpoise underwater hearing sensitivity found hearing sensitivity 

between 2 and 180 kHz (Kastelein et al., 2002). Harbor porpoise is classified within the high-frequency

cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group (200 Hz-180 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

Adult bottlenose dolphins range in length from 1.8 to 3.8 m (5.9 to 12.5 ft). Within the western North 

Atlantic, including the AOI, there are two distinct bottlenose dolphin forms, or ecotypes: coastal and 

offshore. The two forms are genetically and morphologically distinct, though regionally variable 

(Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

The offshore and coastal forms of the bottlenose dolphin are classified as separate stocks: the Western 

North Atlantic Offshore and the Western North Atlantic Coastal morphotype stocks (Waring et al., 2010). 

Based on genetic differences, coastal form bottlenose dolphins in the AOI are divided into a complex 

mosaic of separate stocks (Waring et al., 2010) that include the following:

• Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal stock;

• Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stock;

• Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal stock;

• Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal stock;

• Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock;

• Northern North Carolina Estuarine System stock;

• Southern North Carolina Estuarine System stock;

• Charleston Estuarine System stock;
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-39

• Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina Estuarine System stock;

• Southern Georgia Estuarine System stock;

• Jacksonville Estuarine System stock; and

• Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System stock.

There are insufficient data to determine the status of the Western North Atlantic Offshore stock in the 

U.S. Atlantic EEZ, and it is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. All coastal form stocks 

have been designated as “depleted” under the MMPA but not listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. Consequently, all of the coastal form stocks are classified as strategic because of their depleted 

listing (Waring et al., 2010).

Under the MMPA of 1972 (as amended), NMFS has declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for 

bottlenose dolphins in the Mid-Atlantic region from early July 2013 through the present. Elevated 

numbers of strandings of this species have occurred in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and 

Virginia, with the highest number of strandings to-date occurring in Virginia. All age classes of 

bottlenose dolphins are involved, and strandings range from a few live animals to mostly dead animals 

with many very decomposed. A team of independent scientists is working with the Working Group on 

Marine Mammal UME to review the data collected. Currently, no single cause for this stranding can be 

identified. Some dolphins have shown pulmonary lesions, and one dolphin has tested for possible 

morbillivirus infection, although it is too early to determine if morbillivirus is causing the 

strandings. BOEM will continue to monitor this UME and will evaluate it in future NEPA analyses, as 

more data become available (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatldolphins2013.html). 

Distribution

The bottlenose dolphin is widely distributed throughout the western North Atlantic. The offshore 

form is distributed primarily along the OCS and continental slope in the northwest Atlantic Ocean from 

Nova Scotia to the southern Florida peninsula but has been documented to occur relatively close to shore 

within areas from south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The coastal form is continuously distributed 

along the Atlantic Coast from south of New York to around the Florida peninsula and may overlap with 

the offshore from off the southeastern U.S. Generally, population density appears to be higher within 

inner shelf areas (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Behavior 

Group size of bottlenose dolphins is commonly less than 20 individuals, although larger groups are 

occasionally observed. They are considered as generalist feeders and use a wide variety of prey species, 

including fishes, squids, shrimps, and other crustaceans (Jefferson et al., 2008). Sexual maturity ranges 

from 5-13 years for females and 9-14 years for males (USDOC, NMFS, 2011f). Gestation length is 

around 12 months, and calves are weaned at around 18-20 months; births occur in late spring to early 

summer (Thayer et al., 2003). Bottlenose dolphins are long-lived; life expectancy is around 25 years, 

with some living longer (Duffield and Wells, 1990).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

The auditory range of bottlenose dolphins is between 150 Hz and 135 kHz (Ljungblad et al., 1982). 

The species is classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group 

(150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 

Killer whales within the western North Atlantic are included within the Western North Atlantic stock. 

They are considered uncommon or rare in waters of the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Katona et al., 1988). Adults 

reach a body length of 9.8 m (32 ft) (Jefferson et al., 2008).
4-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Status

There are insufficient data to determine the population status of killer whales in U.S. Atlantic EEZ. 

The species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and the Western North Atlantic stock 

is not classified as a strategic stock.

Distribution

The killer whale’s distribution is cosmopolitan. Within the North Atlantic, its range extends from the 

Arctic ice-edge to the West Indies. While their occurrence is unpredictable, in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ, 

they do occur in fishing areas, perhaps coincident with tuna, in warm seasons (Katona et al., 1988; 

USDOC, NMFS, 1995). In an extensive analysis of historical whaling records, Reeves and Mitchell 

(1988) plotted the distribution of killer whales in offshore and mid-ocean areas. Their results suggest that 

the offshore areas need to be considered in present-day distribution, movements, and stock relationships. 

Stock definition is unknown. Results from other areas (e.g., the Pacific Northwest and Norway) suggest 

that social structure and territoriality may be important.

Behavior 

Killer whales are usually observed alone or in groups of up to 50 individuals (Ford, 2002). Three 

types of killer whale societies (resident, transient, and offshore), based on differences in ecology, 

coloration, and external morphology, are reported in certain areas (Jefferson et al., 2008). Killer whales 

feed on mammals, fishes, and cephalopods and use cooperative techniques to herd fish and attack large 

prey (Ford, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

The auditory range of killer whales is from <500 Hz-120 kHz (Bain et al., 1993; Szymanski et al., 

1999). It is classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group 

(150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Pygmy Killer Whale (Feresa attenuata) 

Pygmy killer whales within the western North Atlantic are included within the Western North 

Atlantic stock. They are considered uncommon or rare in waters of the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Waring et al., 

2010). Adults attain a body length of up to 2.6 m (8.5 ft) (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

There are insufficient data to determine the status of pygmy killer whales in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. 

The species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and the Western North Atlantic stock 

is not a classified as strategic stock (Waring et al., 2010).

Distribution

The pygmy killer whale is distributed worldwide in tropical to subtropical waters (Jefferson et al., 

2008). There are insufficient data to determine the numbers of pygmy killer whales off the U.S. or 

Canadian Atlantic Coast, and it is rarely observed within these waters during dedicated surveys. A group 

of six individuals was sighted during a 1992 vessel survey off of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in waters 

greater than 4,920 ft (1,500 m) deep (Hansen et al., 1994), but the whales were not encountered again 

during subsequent surveys (USDOC, NMFS, 1999, 2002; Mullin and Fulling, 2003).

Behavior 

There is little known about the biology of the pygmy killer whale. Groups generally contain 

approximately 12-50 individuals. They feed on fishes and squids, though they have been known to attack 

dolphins (Jefferson et al., 2008).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-41

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Little is known of the auditory range and sound production of the pygmy killer whale. Data show 

pygmy killer whale clicks between 70 and 85 kHz (Madsen et al., 2004). The species is classified within 

the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group (150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 

2007).

False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens) 

The false killer whale is a large, dark gray to black dolphin that has a long, slender body form with a 

small conical head. Adults may reach a body length of up to 6 m (20 ft) (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

The false killer whale is not included within a separate management stock. There are insufficient data 

to determine its status within the AOI.

Distribution

False killer whales are distributed worldwide within tropical to warm temperate waters. Generally, 

they are found in deep oceanic areas, though they are known to also occur on the continental shelf and 

shelf edge (Baird, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008).

Behavior 

False killer whales are highly social and commonly observed in groups of 10-60 individuals, although 

larger groups have been documented. They primarily feed on fishes and cephalopods, although they are 

known to attack other cetaceans. The calving interval for one group was reported as almost 7 years, and 

calving may occur year-round (Baird, 2002).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

The auditory range of false killer whales is <1-115 kHz (Johnson, 1967; Awbrey et al., 1988; 

Au, 1993). The species is classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal

hearing group (150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus) 

Risso’s dolphins are large dolphins with characteristic blunt head and light coloration, often with 

extensive scarring. Adults reach body lengths of over 3.8 m (12.5 ft).

Status

The status of the Western North Atlantic stock of the Risso's dolphin in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is not 

well-documented. The species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and there are 

insufficient data to determine population trends for this species. The stock is not classified as strategic.

Distribution

Risso's dolphins are widely distributed in tropical and temperate seas. In the Northwest Atlantic they 

occur from Florida to eastern Newfoundland (Leatherwood et al., 1976; Baird and Stacey, 1990). Risso's 

dolphins occur along the continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank, including in the 

Cape Hatteras Special Research Area (CHSRA) (Figure 4-4), during spring, summer, and autumn. In 

winter, they occur in oceanic (slope) waters within the MAB (Waring et al., 2010).
4-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Behavior 

Risso’s dolphins are often observed in small to moderate-sized groups of 10-100 individuals, though 

larger aggregations have been reported. They commonly associate with other cetacean species. They 

feed on crustaceans and cephalopods (primarily squids). Data suggest a summer calving peak within the 

North Atlantic.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

The auditory range of Risso’s dolphins is between 4 and 80 kHz (Au et al., 1997). The species is 

classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group (150 Hz-160 kHz) 

(Southall et al., 2007).

Pilot Whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus and G. melas) 

Two species of pilot whales occur within the western North Atlantic: the short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) and the long-finned pilot whale (G. melas). These species are difficult to 

differentiate at sea and so they are often reported as Globicephala sp. Pilot whales attain a body length of 

7.2 m (24 ft) (short-finned pilot whale) and 6.7 m (22 ft) (long-finned pilot whale) (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

There are insufficient data to determine the status of short-finned and long-finned pilot whales in the 

U.S. Atlantic EEZ. Each species within this area is categorized into the Western North Atlantic stock. 

Neither species is listed under the ESA, nor are their Western North Atlantic stocks classified as strategic.

Distribution

Pilot whales in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ occur in oceanic waters. Short-finned pilot whales are found 

within warm temperate to tropical waters and, within the North Atlantic, generally do not range farther 

north than 50° N latitude. Long-finned pilot whales occur in temperate and subpolar waters, with some 

distributional overlap with short-finned pilot whales in their southern range, including the CHSRA 

(Figure 4-4). Within the western North Atlantic, short-finned pilot whale strandings have been reported 

as far north as Nova Scotia (1990) and Block Island, Rhode Island (2001), though the majority of the 

strandings occurred from North Carolina southward. Long-finned pilot whales have been reported 

stranded as far south as Florida.

Behavior 

Pilot whales are generally found in large aggregations. Studies suggest that these aggregations are 

relatively stable and maternally based. Aggregations of short-finned pilot whales are commonly 

associated with other cetacean species. Pilot whales feed primarily on squids, although they also take 

small to medium-sized fishes when available. Pilot whales, like some other marine mammals, have been 

observed to prey on longline bait and/or catch, and NMFS has implemented management of long-line 

fishing activities to reduce the number of injured pilot whales (USDOC, NMFS, 2009d). Pilot whales are 

one of the species most often associated with mass strandings. Breeding peaks occur during summer.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Short-finned pilot whales produce vocalizations from 280 Hz-100 kHz (Scheer et al., 1998). Recent 

studies indicate that the region of best hearing in long-finned pilot whales is between 11.2 and 50 kHz 

(Pacini et al., 2010). They are classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal

hearing group (150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-43

Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) 

The common dolphin may be one of the most widely distributed species of cetaceans, as it is found 

worldwide in temperate, tropical, and subtropical seas. Two species have been recognized: the 

long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis) and the short-beaked common dolphin (which 

includes individuals within the northern Atlantic). Common dolphins attain a body length of 2.5 m 

(8.2 ft) (Jefferson et al., 2008).

Status

Short-beaked common dolphins within the northwestern Atlantic are classified within one stock 

(Western North Atlantic stock). Their status in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is not well documented. The 

species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and there are insufficient data to 

determine the population trends for this species. It is not classified as a strategic stock.

Distribution 

Common dolphins are distributed in waters off the northeastern U.S. coast (Cetacean and Turtle 

Assessment Program [CETAP], 1982; Selzer and Payne, 1988; Waring et al., 1992; Hamazaki, 2002). 

They regularly occur along the continental shelf and slope (100-2,000 m [328-6,562 ft]) from 50o N to 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, although aggregations have been reported as far south as eastern Florida 

(Gaskin, 1992). They occur from Cape Hatteras northeast to Georges Bank (35°-42° N) during 

mid-January to May and move as far north as the Scotian Shelf from mid-summer to autumn (Selzer and 

Payne, 1988).

Behavior 

Common dolphins are often observed in groups ranging in size from 10-10,000 individuals. These 

groups are often segregated by age and sex. The prey of common dolphins consists of small schooling 

fishes and squids. Their calving interval is 1-3 years, with peak calving in summer months.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

The auditory range of common dolphins is between 60 and 128 kHz (Popov and Klishin, 1998). The 

species is classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group 

(150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra) 

The melon-headed whale is a small, robust whale that reaches a maximum length of about 2.8 m 

(9 ft). 

Status

The western North Atlantic population of melon-headed whales is considered a separate stock. There 

are insufficient data to determine the population status of the stock in the western North Atlantic EEZ, 

and it is not classified as a strategic stock nor is it listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

Distribution

The melon-headed whale is distributed worldwide in tropical to subtropical waters and is assumed to 

be part of the cetacean fauna of the tropical western North Atlantic (Jefferson et al., 1994). The numbers 

of melon-headed whales off the northwest Atlantic Coast are unknown, and seasonal abundance estimates 

are not available (Waring et al., 2010). The paucity of sightings is probably because of a naturally low 

number of groups compared to other cetacean species.
4-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Behavior 

Melon-headed whales are social and usually occur in large aggregations of 100-500 individuals. 

They are often observed in mixed species groups. They feed on squids and small schooling fishes. Little 

is known of this species’ life history or reproductive biology.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

There is no direct measurement of auditory threshold for the hearing sensitivity of melon-headed 

whales (Ketten, 2000). They are known to produce sounds between 8 and 40 kHz (Watkins et al., 1997) 

and are classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group 

(150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) 

The Atlantic white-sided dolphin is robust and attains a body length of approximately 2.8 m (9 ft) 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). It is characterized with a strongly “keeled” tail stock and distinctive color pattern.

Status

Atlantic white-sided dolphins observed off the eastern U.S. coast are classified within the Western 

North Atlantic stock. The distribution of sightings, strandings, and incidental takes suggest the possible 

existence of three stock units within this region: Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador Sea 

stocks (Waring et al., 2010). There are insufficient data to determine seasonal abundance estimates of 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins off the eastern U.S. coast and their status in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. The 

species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and the stock is not classified as strategic.

Distribution

Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found in cold temperate and subpolar waters of the North Atlantic 

(Cipriano, 2002). Their preferred habitat appears to be waters of the outer continental shelf and slope, 

although there are regular sightings of this species within the western North Atlantic waters along the 

mid-shelf to the 100-m (328-ft) depth contour (Waring et al., 2010). The Western North Atlantic stock 

inhabits waters from central West Greenland to North Carolina (about 35 ̊ N) (Waring et al., 2010).

Behavior 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins form groups of varying size, ranging from less than 100 to over 

1,000 individuals. Data suggest that there may be age and/or sex segregation of these groups, with 

evidence of stable subgroups within the large groups. They are often observed feeding in mixed-species 

groups with pilot whales and other dolphin species. Atlantic white-sided dolphins feed mostly on small 

schooling fishes, shrimps, and squids (Cipriano, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008).

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

The hearing sensitivity of the Pacific white-sided dolphin, a congener of the Atlantic species, is 

75 Hz-150 kHz (Tremel et al., 1998). They are classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional 

marine mammal hearing group (150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Fraser’s Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) 

Fraser’s dolphins are characterized by an extremely robust body and small appendages. Maximum 

length is approximately 2.7 m (9 ft). 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-45

Status

Fraser's dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical waters (Perrin et al., 1994) and are assumed to 

be part of the cetacean fauna of the tropical western North Atlantic. The species is considered uncommon 

within the AOI. There are insufficient data to determine the status of the Western North Atlantic stock of 

Fraser’s dolphins in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ or population trends for this species. The species is not listed 

as threatened or endangered under the ESA. It is not classified as a strategic stock.

Distribution

Fraser’s dolphins are distributed within tropical, oceanic waters between 30° N and 30° S. They may 

also occur closer to shore in areas where deep water approaches the coast (Dolar, 2002; Jefferson et al., 

2008).

Behavior 

Very little is known about the life history of Fraser’s dolphin. They are commonly observed in large 

aggregations consisting of hundreds or thousands of individuals (Dolar, 2002). Fraser’s dolphin 

aggregations are often mixed with other cetacean species. Data show that Fraser’s dolphins feed on 

midwater fishes (such as myctophids), squids, and crustaceans.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Fraser’s dolphins produce vocalizations ranging from 4.3 to over 40 kHz (Watkins et al., 1994). The 

species is classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group 

(150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).

Rough-Toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis) 

The rough-toothed dolphin is a relatively robust dolphin that attains a body length of 2.8 m (9 ft) 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). It is characterized by a long, conical head with no demarcation between the 

melon and beak.

Status

Rough-toothed dolphins observed off the eastern U.S. coast are classified within the Western North 

Atlantic stock. There are insufficient data to determine seasonal abundance estimates of rough-toothed 

dolphins off the eastern U.S. coast or their status in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. The species is not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA, and the stock is not classified as strategic.

Distribution

Rough-toothed dolphins are distributed within tropical and subtropical waters between 40° N and 

35° S. They generally inhabit deep, oceanic waters. Records from the Atlantic are mostly from between 

the southeastern U.S. and southern Brazil (Jefferson, 2002).

Behavior 

The rough-toothed dolphin is commonly observed in groups of 10-20 individuals, although 

aggregations of over 100 individuals have been reported. They frequently associate with other cetacean 

species. Rough-toothed dolphins feed on cephalopods and fishes, including large pelagic fishes.

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

Rough-toothed dolphins produce vocalizations ranging from 0.1-200 kHz (Yu et al., 2003). The 

species are classified within the mid-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group 

(150 Hz-160 kHz) (Southall et al., 2007).
4-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Seals

The mammalian suborder Pinnipedia includes three recognized families:

1. Phocidae (earless seals or true seals); 

2. Otaridae (eared or fur seals and sea lions); and

3. Odobenidae (walrus). 

Four species of phocid seals may occur within the AOI. Listed in alphabetical order, these include 

the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harp seal (Phoca groenlandica), and 

hooded seal (Cystophora cristata). Generally, the normal range of these species is north of the AOI. 

Over the last decade, increases in pinniped sightings and stranding events have been documented in 

Mid-Atlantic areas, including the AOI where, historically, records were very few. The increases in 

sighting and stranding events in these areas suggest that the distributions of these species may be 

expanding into areas outside of their documented ranges (NOAA Northeast Stranding Network, 

unpublished pinniped stranding records for New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, 2007-2011).

Status

Each of the four seal species known to occur within the western North Atlantic and the AOI is 

classified within separate Western North Atlantic stocks. Currently, there are insufficient data to 

determine the status of these seal stocks in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. The species are not listed as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA, and none of the stocks are classified as strategic.

Distribution

The gray seal ranges from Canada to New York; however, there are strandings records as far south as 

Cape Hatteras (Davies, 1957; Mansfield, 1966; Katona et al., 1993; Lesage and Hammill, 2001). Gray 

seal strandings were highest of the four species in the northern AOI between 2007 and 2011, with 

205 records on coastlines between Delaware and Virginia (NOAA Northeast Stranding Network, 

unpublished pinniped stranding records for New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, 2007-2011).

The harbor seal is found in all nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjoining seas north of 

30o N (Katona et al., 1993). In the western North Atlantic, they are distributed from eastern Canada to 

southern New England and New York, and occasionally to the Carolinas (Mansfield, 1967; Boulva and 

McLaren, 1979; Katona et al., 1993; Gilbert and Guldager, 1998; Baird, 2001). Within the northern AOI 

between Delaware and Virginia, there were 161 harbor seal strandings between 2007 and 2011 (NOAA 

Northeast Stranding Network, unpublished pinniped stranding records for New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia, 2007-2011).

The harp seal occurs throughout much of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans (Ronald and Healey, 

1981). They are divided into three separate stocks, with the largest stock located off eastern Canada

(Waring et al., 2012). Harp seals are highly migratory (Sergeant, 1965; Stenson and Sjare, 1997). Within 

the northern AOI between Delaware and Virginia, there were 180 harp seal strandings between 2007 and 

2011 (NOAA Northeast Stranding Network, unpublished pinniped stranding records for New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, 2007-2011).

The hooded seal occurs throughout much of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans (King, 1983), 

preferring deeper water and occurring farther offshore than harbor seals (Sergeant, 1976; Campbell, 1987; 

Lavigne and Kovacs, 1988; Stenson et al., 1996). Individuals may wander widely, with sightings records 

as far south as Puerto Rico (Mignucci-Giannoni and Odell, 2001). There are increased occurrences of 

hooded seals from Maine to Florida in summer and autumn (McAlpine et al., 1999; Harris et al., 2001; 

Mignucci-Giannoni and Odell, 2001). However, there were only five recorded strandings of hooded seals 

within the northern AOI between Delaware and Virginia between 2007 and 2011 (NOAA Northeast 

Stranding Network, unpublished pinniped stranding records for New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and 

Virginia, 2007-2011). 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-47

Behavior 

Gray seals dive to depths of 300 m (984 ft) but spend most of their time in coastal waters (Jefferson et 

al., 2008). They are opportunistic feeders that primarily feed on fish, crustaceans, squid, and octopus 

(Bonner, 1981; Reeves et al., 1992; Hall, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Harbor seals complete both 

shallow and deep dives during hunting depending on the availability of prey (Tollit et al., 1997). 

Although primarily coastal, dives to over 500 m (1,640 ft) have been recorded (Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Harbor seals eat a variety of prey consisting mainly of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans (Bigg, 1981; 

Reeves et al., 1992; Burns, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008).

Harp seals live primarily in pack ice, but may be found in other environments in summer. They are 

known to dive to about 370 m (1,200 ft) and eat a variety of fish and invertebrates, primarily on capelin, 

arctic and polar cod, and krill (Ronald and Healey, 1981; Reeves et al., 1992; Lavigne, 2002; Jefferson et 

al., 2008). Hooded seals are generally found in pack ice environments. They are known to dive for food 

to depths of about 100-600 m (325-1,950 ft) for 15 min, but have been found to dive to over 1,000 m 

(3,280 ft) for up to an hour each time. Adult hooded seals feed on squid, starfish, mussels, and fish such 

as Greenland halibut, redfish, cod, capelin, and herring (Reeves and Ling, 1981; Reeves et al., 1992;

Kovacs, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Auditory and Vocalization Range 

The auditory range of phocid seals is generally from <1-60 kHz, although some intraspecific 

variability in high frequency sensitivity has been observed (Richardson et al., 1995). Southall et al. 

(2007) classified pinnipeds within two separate functional marine mammal hearing groups (“pinnipeds in 

water” [75 Hz-75 kHz] and “pinnipeds in air” [75 Hz-30 kHz]), since these species communicate 

acoustically in both air and water, and have significantly different hearing capabilities in the two media.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information on Marine Mammal Populations and Physiology

BOEM concludes that there is incomplete or unavailable information (40 CFR § 1502.22) for all 

marine mammals with respect to (1) seasonal abundances; (2) stock or population size; (3) population 

trends, whether they are increasing, stable, or decreasing; (4) the hearing ranges; and (5) the basic biology 

of specific species and their physiology for underwater hearing. All of these species-specific and 

population variables may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on marine mammals that 

are subject to active acoustic sound sources, i.e., airguns. However, what is known about the biology and 

hearing physiology of representative species (see Appendix H), in combination with observations of 

behavioral response to stimuli, allows inferences and conclusions about reasonably foreseeable adverse 

impacts on marine mammals. Further, given this information and the assumptions on potential effects 

made within the analysis to follow, BOEM has determined that the data or information on marine 

mammal biology, hearing physiology, seasonal abundances, and population stock in the AOI identified as 

incomplete or unavailable are not essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, including the No 

Action alternative.

Moreover, a more complete knowledge base for all types of marine mammals that use the AOI and 

that bear on the factors listed above is not available and the acquisition of such information cannot be 

acquired without exorbitant cost. Such information certainly cannot be acquired in a time frame to make 

it available for this evaluation. While there will never be complete scientific information on marine 

mammals that live in OCS waters, a body of biological and physiological data and information about the 

underwater hearing of representative marine mammals is available to us. These data are sufficient to 

draw inferences and conclusions about types of marine mammals that are less well understood. Thus, 

while we report where limited data and insufficient knowledge challenge our ability to understand how 

and when specific types of marine mammal species use the AOI and that bear on the factors listed above,

incomplete or unavailable information does not affect our ability to understand and assign impacts or 

design mitigation strategies. We are able to draw basic conclusions despite incomplete or unavailable 

information, discuss results using available scientifically credible information, and apply that information 

using accepted scientific methodologies including: acoustic propagation modeling (Appendix D); 

incidental take modeling (Appendix E); and the use of NMFS specified acoustic harassment criteria 

(Appendix D). 
4-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

As noted in Chapter 1.7.7, BOEM anticipates data being released in the future that will help better 

inform decisions on G&G authorizations. Such information, as it becomes available, will be analyzed 

during site-specific environmental reviews. With this analysis, there may also be additional mitigation

measures specific to the particular survey request and/or in consideration of other survey requests ongoing 

or being considered by BOEM at that time.

4.2.2.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses potential impacts of routine activities associated with Alternative A on marine 

mammals. Federally listed endangered and threatened species are included in the discussion with 

nonlisted species because the potential impact mechanisms are the same. However, any impacts on 

managed species are of particular concern since they could affect key populations of these species. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.1.1 and highlighted in Table 4-2, the IPFs from routine activities that may impact 

marine mammals within the AOI include (1) active acoustic sound sources (i.e., airguns; 

electromechanical sources including boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; multibeam depth 

sounders; and side-scan sonars); (2) vessel and equipment noise; (3) vessel traffic (i.e., physical 

disturbance to and risk of collisions with marine mammals); (4) aircraft traffic and noise; and (5) trash

and debris (i.e., potential for entanglement and ingestion). These potential IPFs and their associated 

impacts are discussed below.

4.2.2.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to marine mammals would include those where little to no measurable impacts are 

observed or expected. No mortality or injury (i.e., life threatening or debilitating injury) to any individual 

marine mammal would occur, and no disruption of behavioral patterns would be expected.

Minor impacts to marine mammals would include those that are detectable but are neither extensive 

nor severe. Minor impacts to marine mammals would include minor auditory discomfort, temporary 

disruption of communication and/or echolocation from auditory masking, behavior disruptions of 

individual or localized groups of marine mammals, and limited, localized, and short-term displacement of 

individuals of any species, including strategic stocks, from the area of impact. 

Moderate impacts to marine mammals would be detectable and extensive but not severe. Moderate 

impacts to marine mammals would include injury or mortality, but in low enough numbers such that the 

continued viability of the local population or stock is not threatened and the annual rates of recruitment or 

survival of the local population or stock are not seriously affected. Moderate impacts would also include 

temporary displacement of individuals from preferred or critical habitats. Under the moderate impact

category, the viability or continued existence of marine mammal population(s) or stock(s) affected would 

not be threatened, although some of the impacts to individual mammals may be irreversible.

Major impacts to marine mammals would be detectable, extensive, and severe. Major impacts to 

marine mammals would include extensive levels of life-threatening or debilitating injury or mortality in 

sufficiently high numbers that the continued viability of the population is seriously threatened, including 

serious diminishment of annual rates of recruitment or survival. Major impacts would also include 

long-term disruption of behavioral patterns that would adversely affect a listed or nonlisted species or 

stock through its effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, as well as permanent or long-term 

displacement of a sufficient number of individuals from either preferred habitat or critical habitat. 

Background: Potential Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals 

Underwater noise sources in the proposed action include active acoustic sound sources such as 

airguns and electromechanical sources, as well as continuous (non-pulsed) vessel and equipment noise. 

Overall, the potential for impacts of noise from these sound sources on marine mammals is highly 

variable and highly dependent on the specific circumstances of a given situation. For example, each 

sound source produces different sound types and characteristics. Further, the same exact sound source 

can also propagate differently depending on the physical environment. How a sound from a specific 

source propagates through a particular environment is dependent on a variety of factors, e.g., salinity, 

temperature, source type (impulsive vs. continuous), frequency, intensity, bathymetry, tow depth, and 

transmission loss related to geometric spreading, refraction, absorption, scattering, and bottom loss. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-49

Biological factors including the hearing range of marine mammal species present (broad range and most 

sensitive frequencies), what animals are doing (some may not be bothered when feeding but very 

bothered when resting), individual hearing loss, animals’ previous exposure to noise type, life history 

stage, reproductive status, health status, etc. all contribute to the impacts of noise on marine mammals. A 

review of marine mammal hearing and sensitivity to acoustic impacts is presented in Appendix H. More 

information on acoustical properties and propagation of sound sources under the proposed action can be 

found in Appendix D. 

Past studies on the reactions of animals to noise have shown widely varied responses, depending on 

the individual, age, gender, and the activity in which the animals were engaged (Simmonds et al., 2003). 

Where there is an overlap between noise sources and the frequencies of sound used by marine life, there 

is the potential for sound to interfere with important biological functions. Noise, either natural or 

anthropogenic, can adversely affect marine life in various ways. Four zones of influence from noise are 

offered by Richardson et al. (1995) and summarized by Gordon et al. (2004), including (1) zone of 

audibility – the area within which the sound is both above the animal’s hearing threshold and detectable 

above background noise; (2) zone of responsiveness – the region within which behavioral reactions in 

response to the sound occur; (3) zone of masking – the area within which the sound may mask 

biologically significant sounds; and (4) zone of hearing loss, discomfort, or injury – the area within which 

the sound level is sufficient to cause threshold shifts or hearing damage.

The range of potential effects from noise, in order of decreasing severity and modified slightly from 

the four zones initially outlined by Richardson et al. (1995) above, includes death, non-auditory 

physiological effects, auditory injury–hearing threshold shift, masking, and stress and disturbance, 

including behavioral response (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003a, 2005; Nowacek et al., 2004; 

Southall et al., 2007). There is a high likelihood of more severe potential effects (e.g., temporary or 

permanent hearing loss) when exposure is close to a sound source; however, the magnitude and 

probability of some effects decrease with increasing distance from a source. Masking, however, which is 

further discussed later, is not solely dependent on distance from the source but also on cumulative 

sources, and population density and distribution. The following discussion addresses the range of 

potential effects noted above, with the exception of death and physiological effects, which have been 

combined.

Death and Non-Auditory Physiological Effects

Direct physical injury, which might result in death, may occur from exposure to high levels of sound 

or, more commonly, to shock waves associated with sound-producing events such as in-water explosions

where the velocity of expansion of the bubble causing the pulse is higher than the speed of sound in 

water. These pulses are typically short, with peak pressures that may damage internal organs or air-filled 

body cavities (e.g., lungs) (Yelverton et al., 1973; Goertner, 1982; Young, 1991). Data on direct physical 

injury are limited to anecdotal or forensic investigations after accidental events because ethical 

considerations preventing direct empirical methods to measure such impacts in marine mammals. 

However, such observations (e.g., Todd et al., 1996) and modeling based on impact data for the human 

vestibular system as well as other organs (e.g., lungs) for underwater sound exposures (Cudahy and 

Ellison, 2002) suggest that marine mammals can be susceptible to direct physical injury to particular 

organ systems and tissues following intense exposure, particularly where high particle motion events 

occur. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might occur include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation (which is a highly debated effect), resonance effects, and other 

types of organ or tissue damage. According to the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

(AFTT) Draft EIS (USDON, 2012): “Sonar use during exercises involving U.S. Navy (most often in 

association with other nations’ defense forces) has been identified as a contributing cause or factor in five 

specific mass stranding events: Greece in 1996; the Bahamas in March 2000; Madeira Island, Portugal in 

2000; the Canary Islands in 2002, and Spain in 2006 (Marine Mammal Commission, 2006). These five 

mass strandings have resulted in about 40 known, scientifically verifiable sonar-related deaths among 

cetaceans consisting mostly of beaked whales (International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, 

2005). In these circumstances, exposure to non-impulsive acoustic energy has been considered a potential 

indirect cause of the death of marine mammals (Cox et al., 2006).” In these cases, while the sound itself 

may not have directly caused death or injury, it is assumed to be a causing factor in the strandings that led 

to deaths.
4-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

In addition, the Instituto del Mar del Peru (IMARPE) reported a mass mortality of dolphins and 

brown pelicans off the coast of Piura y Lambayeque from February to mid-April, 2012 (Government of 

Peru Press, 2012). IMARPE reported 877 dolphins stranded from this event. The strandings, which 

began in January, were originally potentially attributed to acoustic impacts from offshore seismic surveys 

testing for oil or perhaps an unknown virus or other pathogen (Fraser and Environmental Health News, 

2012). Extensive analyses on stranded specimens were conducted. Based on the results from these 

analyses, several possible causes were ruled out, including contamination from metals (lead, cadmium, 

and copper), pesticides (carbamates and organochlorines), and bacterial infections such as brucellosis and 

leptospirosis. It also dismissed the lack of food and interactions with fisheries. At this time, the IMARPE 

working group is awaiting a final examination for potential infections of morbillivirus. Ultimately, it was 

stated that it was not possible to link this mortality event to offshore seismic oil exploration.

In September 2013, an International Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) released a report following an 

investigation of a 2008 mass stranding of approximately 100 melon-headed whales in the Loza Lagoon 

system in Madagascar (Southall et al., 2013). The development of this investigation and report was 

supported by the IWC, the Marine Mammal Commission, NOAA, BOEM, ExxonMobil, the Wildlife 

Conservation Society, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Government of Madagascar. 

The ISRP determined that the use of a 12 kHz multi-beam echosounder system (MBES) was “the most 

plausible and likely initial behavioral trigger of the stranding event, but that a variety of secondary factors 

contributed to or ultimately caused mortalities...". According to the report, this was the first time that a 

relatively high-frequency mapping sonar system had been associated with a stranding event. In fact, the 

exact same sound source had been used by the French Navy a few weeks prior in the same general area 

off Madagascar without incident. Further, these types of systems are used worldwide for ocean bottom 

mapping, fish finding, and other common surveys without linkages to stranding events. Results of the 

ISRP report reinforce that impacts can be very situation-specific; in this case, the ISRP concluded that the 

operation of the survey in a directed manner (north to south) parallel to shore may have trapped the 

animals between ship (and sound source) and shore and that the animals continued to turn inland until the 

entered the lagoon and became entrapped. The entrapment is what then led to the mortalities 

(approximately 75 whales).

Given the predominant low-frequency sound sources, limited SPLs and durations, and directionality 

of higher frequency sound sources associated with Alternative A, it is not likely that G&G activities 

would generate sounds loud enough to cause direct mortality (DNV Energy, 2007). However, as noted in 

the examples above, there is the potential (albeit limited) for sound sources to lead to indirect mortality 

through strandings in very situation-specific circumstances. 

In addition, survey protocols and underwater noise mitigation procedures (Appendix C, Section 3.2) 

would be implemented to decrease the potential for any marine mammal to be within the acoustic 

exclusion zone of an operating airgun array, thereby avoiding the highest SPLs and minimizing their 

exposure to these sound sources. Further, BOEM would consider the details of a proposed survey during

the site/permit-specific NEPA analysis to determine if there is a potential for entrapment and, if so, 

mitigate to prevent this from occurring.

Auditory Injuries – Hearing Threshold Shift

The minimum sound level an animal can hear at a specific frequency is called the hearing threshold at 

that frequency. Sounds above a hearing threshold are accommodated until a certain level of sound 

intensity or duration is reached. Too much exposure at a certain level might cause a shift in the animal’s 

hearing thresholds within a certain frequency range. Following exposure, the magnitude of the hearing 

impairment, or threshold shift, normally decreases over time following cessation of noise exposure. 

Threshold shifts can be temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS), can consist of both temporary and 

permanent components, and are defined as follows, as adapted from Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran 

et al. (2005):

• TTS – the mildest form of hearing impairment; exposure to strong sound results in a 

non-permanent (reversible) elevation in hearing threshold, making it more difficult to 

hear sounds; TTS can last from minutes or hours to days; the magnitude of the TTS 

depends on the level and duration of the noise exposure, among other considerations.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-51

• PTS – permanent elevation in hearing threshold; no data are currently available 

regarding noise levels that might induce PTS in marine mammals; PTS is attributed 

to exposure to very high peak pressures and short rise times, or very prolonged or 

repeated exposures to noise strong enough to elicit TTS. 

Several important factors relate to the type and magnitude of hearing loss, including exposure level, 

frequency content, duration, and temporal pattern of exposure. A range of mechanical effects (e.g., stress 

or damage to supporting cell structure, fatigue) and metabolic processes (e.g., inner ear hair cell 

metabolism such as energy production, protein synthesis, and ion transport) within the auditory system 

underlie both TTS and PTS. Additional discussion of TTS and PTS is presented in Appendix H. 

Auditory impairment (TTS or PTS) is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very loud 

sounds. The minimum SPL (or SEL) necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment is higher than the 

level that induces TTS, although there are insufficient data to determine the precise differential.

The pool of available data on hearing and noise impacts has expanded rapidly in recent years. 

Southall et al. (2007) published a paper summarizing noise exposure results (i.e., SELs) and offering a 

series of new approaches to noise impact determinations for marine mammals. First, the marine 

mammals were segregated into the functional hearing groups (Table 4-6). Second, sound sources were 

categorized into functional categories, based on their acoustic and temporal properties. Three sound types 

were characterized, including single and multiple pulses and nonpulses, with separation of sound types 

based on understanding of sound exposure, auditory fatigue, and acoustic trauma in terrestrial mammals 

and applicable damage risk criteria in humans. The review indicated that the lowest received levels of 

impulsive sounds (e.g., airgun pulses) that might elicit slight auditory injury (TTS) are 198 dB re 1 μPa2

-s 

in cetaceans and 186 dB re 1 μPa2

-s in pinnipeds. Odontocetes exposed to impulsive sounds developed 

TTS with exposures as low as ~183 dB re 1 μPa2 s. It should be noted that these received sound levels are 

expressed in SEL terms. Southall et al. (2007) also concluded that receipt of an instantaneous 

flat-weighted peak pressure exceeding 230 dB re 1 μPa (peak) for cetaceans or 218 dB re 1 μPa (peak) for 

pinnipeds might also lead to auditory injury even if the aforementioned cumulative energy-based criterion 

was not exceeded.

The following determinations regarding TTS and PTS are noteworthy (NSF and USGS, 2011):

• recently acquired data indicate that TTS onset in marine mammals is more closely 

correlated with the received SEL than with sound pressure (root mean square [rms]) 

levels and that received sound energy over time should be considered a primary 

measure of potential impact, not just the single strongest pulse; and

• TTS values for pinnipeds are not well defined; while there are published data on 

levels of non-impulse sound (see Kastak et al., 1999), data are not available regarding 

impulse sound and TTS in pinnipeds. Based on the results for non-impulse sound, 

the TTS for pinnipeds exposed to impulse sound may be as low as 

171 dB re 1 μPa2 s in the more sensitive species such as the harbor seal.

The primary measure of sound used in the proposed new criteria is the received sound energy, not just 

in the single strongest pulse, but accumulated over time. Received sound energy over a period of time or, 

in this case, a series of pulsed sounds over a period of time, is the fundamental basis for the SEL metric. 

Southall et al. (2007) define SEL as “the dB level of the time integral of the squared-instantaneous sound 

pressure normalized to a 1-s period.” The use of an SEL is advantageous because it can account for 

(1) cumulative sound exposure, (2) sounds of differing duration, and (3) multiple sound exposures. It also 

allows comparison between different sound exposures based on total energy (i.e., calculation of a single 

exposure “equivalent” value; Southall et al., 2007). This approach also assumes no recovery of hearing 

between repeated exposures. The most appropriate interval over which the received airgun pulse energy 

should be accumulated is not well defined. However, pending the availability of additional relevant 

information, recommendations suggest considering noise exposure over 24-hr periods (Southall et al., 

2007). The NMFS continues to evaluate the SEL metric for marine mammal injury (i.e., TTS, PTS); 

however, the current regulatory thresholds remain based on SPLs (i.e., 180/190 dB re 1 μPa [rms] for 

injury; 160 dB re 1 μPa [rms] for behavioral modification); further discussion of the current noise 

exposure thresholds is provided in a subsequent section (“Acoustic Impact Criteria”). 
4-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Sound sources used during G&G activities have the potential to produce TTS or PTS in marine 

mammals present within range of operational sound sources, with range to exposure thresholds dependent 

upon the size of the sound source and other factors; detailed analysis of active acoustic sound source 

impacts is provided later in this chapter. Survey protocols and underwater noise mitigation procedures 

(Appendix C, Section 3.2) would be implemented to decrease the potential for any marine mammal to be 

within the acoustic exclusion zone of an operating airgun array or other sound source, thereby avoiding 

the highest sound levels.

Masking 

Noise can affect hearing and partially or completely reduce an individual’s ability to effectively 

communicate; detect important predator, prey, and/or conspecific signals; and/or detect important 

environmental features associated with spatial orientation (Clark et al., 2009). Masking is defined as the 

obscuring of sounds of interest by other, stronger sounds, often at similar frequencies. Spectral, temporal, 

and spatial overlap between the masking noise and the sender/receiver determines the extent of 

interference; the greater the spectral and temporal overlap, the greater the potential for masking.

Naturally occurring ambient noise is produced from various sources, including wind, waves, 

precipitation, other animals, and (at frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal noise resulting from molecular 

agitation (Richardson et al., 1995). Background noise (natural and anthropogenic) can also include 

sounds from distant human activities (e.g., shipping), particularly in areas where heavy levels of shipping 

traffic are located. Ambient noise can produce masking, effectively interfering with the ability of an 

animal to detect a sound signal that it otherwise would hear. Under normal circumstances, in the absence 

of high ambient noise levels, an animal would hear a sound signal because it is above its absolute hearing 

threshold. Natural masking prevents a portion or all of a sound signal from being heard. Further masking 

of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background noise. Ambient 

noise is highly variable on continental shelves (e.g., see Desharnais et al., 1999), effectively creating a 

high degree of variability in the range at which marine mammals can detect anthropogenic sounds.

Masking is a natural phenomenon to which marine mammals have adapted through various 

mechanisms (e.g., dominant frequency shift; increasing source levels). However, the production of strong 

sounds at frequencies that are important to marine mammals necessarily increases the severity and 

frequency of masking. In the cases of high-frequency hearing by the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), and killer whale (Orcinus orca), empirical evidence 

confirms that masking depends strongly on the relative directions of arrival of sound signals and the 

characteristics of the masking noise (Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; Bain et al., 1993; Bain and 

Dahlheim, 1994).

Toothed whales have the ability to facilitate the detection of sounds in the presence of background 

noise. There is evidence that some toothed whales (e.g., bottlenose dolphin: Au et al., 1974, Moore and 

Pawloski, 1990, Romanenko and Kitain, 1992; beluga whale: Au et al., 1985, Lesage et al., 1999; false 

killer whale: Thomas and Turl, 1990) can shift the dominant frequencies of their echolocation signals 

from a frequency range containing excessive ambient noise toward frequencies with less noise. Several 

marine mammal species are also known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of 

elevated sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 1993; Lesage et al., 1999; Terhune, 1999). While data exist 

that demonstrate adaptation among odontocetes to reduce the effects of masking at high frequencies, there 

are fewer data sources available regarding corresponding mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies, or 

in other marine mammal groups (i.e., mysticetes). Recent work by Clark et al. (2009) summarizes the 

potential for acoustic masking on baleen whales from anthropogenic sounds, including shipping. 

Castellote et al. (2010), studying fin whales in the eastern Atlantic and western Mediterranean, 

documented the shortening of low-frequency (20 Hz) pulse duration, decreasing bandwidth, and 

decreasing center and peak frequencies as a result of masking from shipping (and seismic) activity. 

Directional hearing has been demonstrated at frequencies as low as 0.5-2 kHz in several marine 

mammals, including killer whales (see Richardson et al., 1995). This ability may be useful in reducing 

masking at these frequencies.

Sound sources used during G&G activities have the potential to mask marine mammal

communication and monitoring of the environment around them, if an individual is present within the 

calculated distance from the source that would affect marine mammals, as defined by NOAA’s acoustic 

guidelines, and the hearing sensitivity(ies) of the marine mammals present coincide with the frequency of 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-53

the sound source being used. Survey protocols and underwater noise mitigation procedures 

(Appendix C, Section 3.2) would be implemented to decrease some of the potential risk for any marine 

mammal to be within the acoustic exclusion zone of an operating airgun array or other sound source, 

thereby reducing the potential for masking. Further, through the site/permit-specific NEPA analysis, 

BOEM will review the potential for masking of the individual proposed action in concert with those 

already permitted or being considered for permitting, so that individual actions can be designed to include 

mitigation measures to reduce the potential for or duration of any potential masking (e.g., time-area 

closures during key high density periods during reproduction).

Stress, Disturbance, and Behavioral Responses

Stress in marine mammals resulting from noise exposure typically involves the sympathetic nervous 

system. Stress response in marine mammals is immediate, acute, and characterized by the release of the 

neurohormones norepinephrine and epinephrine (i.e., catecholamines; U.S. Navy, Office of Naval 

Research, 2009). Various researchers (e.g., Romano et al., 2004) have summarized available evidence for 

profound activity during stressors such as stranding or predation (Cowan and Curry, 2008; Mashburn and 

Atkinson, 2008; Eskesen et al., 2009). Romano et al. (2004) note that no quantitative approach to 

estimating changes in mortality or fecundity because of stress has been identified and that qualitative 

effects may include increased susceptibility to disease and early termination of pregnancy.

Disturbance can induce a variety of effects including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous 

dramatic changes in activities, and displacement. Disturbance is one of the main concerns of the potential 

impacts of manmade noise on marine mammals. Richardson et al. (1995) noted that most small and 

medium-sized toothed whales exposed to prolonged or repeated underwater sounds are unlikely to be 

displaced unless the overall received level is at least 140 dB re 1 μPa. While a prediction of behavioral 

responses resulting from received SPLs is problematic, several study results are available. Limited 

available data indicate that sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) are sometimes, though not always, 

more responsive to anthropogenic noise than other toothed whales. Baleen whales probably have better 

hearing sensitivities at lower sound frequencies, and in several studies have been shown to react at 

received sound levels of approximately 120 dB re 1 μPa (e.g., 0.5 probability of avoidance by gray 

whales of a continuous noise source; Malme et al., 1988; also see Southall et al., 2007).

During a recent NOAA-sponsored symposium (i.e., Mapping Cetaceans and Sound: Modern Tools 

for Ocean Management Symposium; USDOC, NOAA, 2012), Johnson addressed endangered species 

issues and the challenges of assessing the cumulative impacts of noise. He stated, “Assessing the effects 

of noise-producing activities on endangered and threatened cetaceans has been challenging for several 

reasons. First, noise in marine systems propagates over relatively large areas so cetaceans can be exposed 

to noise from distant sources at the same time they are exposed to proximate sources. In addition, noise 

typically originates from multiple sources and many of those sources have similar spectral qualities, 

which complicates the process of establishing causal relationships between exposing cetaceans to a 

particular source of noise and cetacean responses to an exposure. Further, coastal and marine systems are 

not inherently quiet so cetaceans are exposed to multiple acoustic stimuli at any particular point in time.”

Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are difficult to predict because reactions are 

dependent on numerous factors, including the species being evaluated; the animal’s state of maturity, 

prior experience and exposure to anthropogenic sounds, current activity patterns, and reproductive state; 

time of day; and weather state (Wartzok et al., 2004). If a marine mammal reacts to an underwater sound 

by changing its behavior or moving to avoid a sound source, the impacts of that change may not be 

important to the individual, the stock, or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces 

marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on both 

individuals and the population could be important.

There is a very wide range of possible behavioral responses to sound exposure, given that the sound is 

audible to the particular animal, including, in approximate order of increasing severity but decreasing 

likelihood, the following:

• none observable – animals can become less sensitive over repeated exposures;

• looking at the sound source or increased alertness;

• minor behavioral responses such as vocal modifications associated with masking;
4-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

• cessation of feeding or social interactions;

• temporary avoidance behavior (emerging as one of the more common responses);

• modification of group structure or activity state; and/or

• habitat abandonment.

Assessing the severity of behavioral effects of anthropogenic sound exposure on marine mammals

presents unique challenges associated with the inherent complexity of behavioral responses and the 

contextual factors affecting them, both within and between individuals and species. Severity of responses 

can vary depending on characteristics of the sound source (e.g., moving or stationary, number and spatial 

distribution of sound source[s], similarity to predator sounds, and other relevant factors) (Richardson 

et al., 1995; NRC, 2005; Southall et al., 2007; Wirsing et al., 2008; Bejder et al., 2009; Barber et al., 

2010; Ellison et al., 2011). 

Hatch et al. (2012) quantified the losses of historical and present potential communication space of 

NARWs, estimating a 63 percent loss from the mid-20th century. Further, commercial vessel passage has 

increased the loss of communication space to 67 percent. This species’ low population numbers, low 

calling rate, and lower source levels make them particularly vulnerable to communication masking as a 

result of vessel noise. Hatch et al. (2012) and Tyack (2008) note that baleen whale species use a variety 

of complex acoustic behaviors to conduct vital activities such as foraging, raising of young, migrating, 

and selecting mates. Thus, increasing levels of background noise within the frequency bands used by 

whales to send and receive information are likely to affect their abilities to survive and reproduce (Ellison 

et al., 2012).

There is considerable available literature on the effects of noise on marine mammal hearing 

(see Southall et al., 2007 and Appendix H for an extensive review). Traveling blue and fin whales 

exposed to seismic noise from airguns have been reported to stop emitting redundant songs (McDonald et 

al., 1995; Clark and Gagnon, 2004). By contrast, Di Iorio and Clark (2010) found increased production 

of transient calls during seismic sparker operations, suggesting that blue whales respond to noise 

interference according to the context and the signal produced. They further postulated that animals 

engaged in near-term, proximate communication are probably afforded an advantage in acoustic 

behaviors that maintain the immediate social link; for animals engaged in long-term singing directed to a 

distant audience, information loss is minor if singing is temporarily interrupted. Di Iorio and Clark 

(2010) determined that blue whales changed their calling behavior in response to a low-frequency, low 

output sound source that was previously presumed to have minor environmental impact (Duchesne et al., 

2007). The mean sound pressure was relatively low, 131 dB re 1 μPa (peak to peak) (30-500 Hz) with a 

mean SEL of 114 dB re 1 μPa2

 -s (90% energy for signal duration estimate; Madsen, 2005). There are 

insufficient data to determine the relevance of the observed vocal adjustment to an individual whale’s 

well-being. However, their observations were conducted in an important feeding area where blue whales 

acquire energy and where this wide-roaming, highly dispersed population congregates to engage in social 

interactions. Reducing an individual’s ability to detect socially relevant signals could therefore affect 

biologically important processes. This study suggests careful reconsideration of the potential behavioral 

impacts of even low source level seismic survey sounds on large whales. This is particularly relevant 

when the species is at high risk of extinction, as is the blue whale.

Bain and Dahlheim (1994) observed behavioral changes in a captive killer whale exposed to 135 dB

(in a band below 5 kHz), and Bain (1995) effectively used noise with a received level of around 135 dB 

(with a predominant frequency at 300 Hz) as a deterrent. Olesiuk et al. (2002) found noise from acoustic 

harassment devices with a source level of 195 dB excluded harbor porpoises within a radius of 3 km 

(1.9 km), a distance at which received levels were estimated to drop to ~135 dB. Individual harbor 

porpoises may have been kept farther away, as there were sighting limitations beyond 3 km (1.9 km). 

Morton and Symonds (2002) also found that the same type of acoustic harassment devices as studied by 

Olesiuk et al. (2002) excluded killer whales from the area around the devices. North Atlantic right whales 

exhibited changes in diving behavior when exposed to noise below 135 dB (Nowacek et al., 2004). Blue 

whales responded to noise from seismic sparker operations by increasing call production. Acoustic 

reactions of cetaceans to airgun activity include reduced vocalization rates (e.g., Goold, 1996) but no 

vocal changes (e.g., Madsen et al., 2002) or cessation of singing (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995). Other 

short-term vocal adjustments observed across taxa exposed to elevated ambient noise levels include 

shifting call frequency, increasing call amplitude or duration, and ceasing to call (Nowacek et al., 2007). 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-55

In baleen whales, NARWs exposed to high shipping noise increased call frequency (Parks et al., 2007), 

and some humpback whales responded to low-frequency active sonar playbacks by increasing song length 

(Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003). Porpoises avoid pingers with source levels of about 130 dB at 

distances of from 100-1,000 m (328-3,280 ft), depending on experience and environmental context 

(Gearin et al., 1996, 2000; Kraus et al., 1997; Laake et al., 1997, 1998; Barlow and Cameron, 1999; 

Cameron, 1999; Cox et al., 2001; Bain, 2002). Kastelein et al. (1997, 2001) found behavioral responses 

at lower levels. Williams et al. (2002a,b, 2009b) found killer whales exhibited behavioral changes in the 

presence of a single vessel producing a received level of approximately 105-110 dB re 1 μPa. Toothed 

whales appear to exhibit a greater variety of reactions to manmade underwater noise than do baleen 

whales. Toothed whale reactions can vary from approaching vessels (e.g., to bow ride) to strong

avoidance.

It is apparent that there is significant species-specific contextual variability in the behavioral 

responses of marine mammals to noise exposure. Further, variability can also occur within a species at 

the individual level where hearing loss or prior experience with a certain sound type can influence 

whether or not an individual reacts. It is also evident that there is a broad spectrum of behavioral 

responses, each of which has varying importance to the individual. Recognizing these issues, Southall et 

al. (2007) concluded (1) that there are many more published accounts of behavioral responses to noise by 

marine mammals than of direct auditory or physiological effects; (2) available data on behavioral 

responses do not converge on specific exposure conditions resulting in particular reactions, nor do they 

point to a common behavioral mechanism; (3) study data obtained with substantial controls, precision, 

and standardized metrics indicate high variance both in behavioral responses and in exposure conditions 

required to elicit a given response; and (4) distinguishing a significant behavioral response from an 

insignificant, momentary alteration in behavior is problematic.

Sound sources used during G&G activities have the potential to produce stress, disturbance, and 

behavioral responses in marine mammals if they are present within the range of the operational array. In 

summary, survey protocols and underwater noise mitigation procedures (Appendix C, Sections 3.2 and 

3.3) would be implemented to decrease the potential for any marine mammal to be within the acoustic 

exclusion zone of an operating sound source, thereby reducing the potential for behavioral responses and 

injury (PTS/TTS) in close proximity to the sound source. However, beyond the acoustic exclusion zone, 

some behavioral responses may occur.

Acoustic Impact Criteria

Since the mid-1990’s, NMFS has specified that marine mammals should not be exposed to pulsed 

sounds with received SPLs exceeding 180 or 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), depending upon whether the 

marine mammal is a cetacean or a pinniped (USDOC, NMFS, 2003). The lower threshold, 

180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), has been used as the Level A harassment threshold for cetaceans. The upper 

threshold, 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), has been used as the Level A harassment threshold for pinnipeds in 

water. The NMFS also considers that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to pulsed sound levels 

≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are subject to Level B harassment (Table 4-7). 

In June 1997, the High Energy Seismic Survey (HESS) team convened a panel of experts to assess 

existing data on marine mammals exposed to seismic pulses and to predict exposures at which physical 

injury could occur (HESS, 1999). With the limited available data at that time, exposure to airgun pulses 

with received levels above 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) was determined to have a high potential for “serious 

behavioral, physiological, and hearing effects.”

Based on the HESS (1999) panel conclusions, NMFS established threshold levels for both injury 

(Level A harassment) and behavioral (Level B harassment) response. The NMFS considers behavioral 

response criteria as a step-function (all-or-none) threshold based solely on the rms value of received 

levels. For injury associated with sound exposure from impulsive sound, NMFS established a 180-dB

(rms, received level) threshold criterion for cetaceans and a 190-dB (rms, underwater, not including in-air 

anthropogenic sources) threshold criterion for pinnipeds (Federal Register, 2003a), based on HESS 

recommendations that “exposure to levels above 180 dB are likely to have the potential to cause serious 

behavioral, physiological, and hearing effects.” The sub-injurious threshold (that likely to cause TTS and 

associated behavioral disruption for impulsive sounds [Level B harassment]) is 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

For non-impulsive sound sources, such as those associated with vessel traffic, aircraft, and drilling and 

dredging activities, the sub-injurious threshold is 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Level A and Level B 
4-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

harassment levels correspond to moderate and minor impact categories, respectively, the latter of which 

have been previously described in Significance Criteria, Chapter 4.2.2.2.1. Distinctions between 

moderate and major impacts are based on the respective definitions of each. Moderate impacts to 

marine mammals would include injury or mortality, but in low enough numbers such that the continued 

viability of the local population or stock is not threatened and the annual rates of recruitment or survival 

of the local population or stock are not seriously affected. Major impacts to marine mammals would 

include extensive levels of life-threatening or debilitating injury or mortality in sufficiently high numbers 

that the continued viability of the population is seriously threatened, including serious diminishment of 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.

The NMFS thresholds have been based on the “rms sound pressure” metric; however, recent scientific 

evidence suggests that auditory effects of transient sounds on marine mammals are better correlated with 

the amount of received energy than with the level of the strongest pulse. Therefore, the present analysis 

considers both the current regulatory thresholds of sound pressure as well as the SEL metric. The 

importance of the SEL metric lies, in part, with the concept of cumulative sound exposure and is 

particularly relevant when considering active acoustic, pulsed sounds such as seismic sounds and their 

potential injurious effects on marine mammals that receive repeated exposure to pulses over a period of 

time. 

Since development and application of the 180- and 190-dB re 1 μPa (rms) criteria, additional 

scientific research has been completed that further clarifies the received levels of underwater sound that 

cause TTS or PTS in marine mammals (e.g., see Kastak et al., 1999; 2005; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). 

Additional discussion of TTS and PTS study results are presented in Appendix H. New criteria have 

been developed based on further advances in the understanding of the impacts of noise on marine 

mammals, as noted previously. The proposed energy (or SEL) criterion considers multiple, cumulative 

exposures across pulses (Southall et al., 2007). Energy criteria refer to cumulative energy from a series of 

impulsive sounds.

Over the past several years, NMFS has been working to develop new acoustic criteria. In late 

September 2013, after an external peer review, NMFS provided a draft version of the new criteria for a 

Federal agency review and comment period. That document outlined new Level A criteria for all sources 

and new Level B criteria for seismic surveys (mainly airguns). BOEM provided comments on the draft 

version of the criteria, including noting additional information BOEM needed to evaluate the 

methodology. Further, the draft version did not contain NMFS’s plan for implementing any new criteria.

As of the publication of this Final Programmatic EIS, the criteria still remain in draft form. BOEM 

continues to provide NMFS with comments as requested. However, analysis of the criteria within this 

Final Programmatic EIS is not possible given the uncertainty that still remains on the final content of the 

criteria. However, if NMFS finalizes new criteria, BOEM will evaluate the criteria in the context of any 

site/permit-specific analysis under the OCSLA and NEPA. NMFS will also apply any new criteria at this 

site/permit-specific level through any undertaken MMPA authorization process.

4.2.2.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Active acoustic sound sources included in the proposed action include airguns, boomer, sparker, and 

chirp subbottom profilers; side-scan sonars; and multibeam depth sounders, as discussed in Chapter 3.5. 

These active acoustic sound sources are divided into two types, airguns and electromechanical sources

(Appendix D). Both airguns and electromechanical sources are expected to be used in seismic airgun 

surveys for oil and gas exploration, whereas non-airgun HRG surveys associated with the renewable 

energy and minerals management programs are expected to use only electromechanical sound sources

(i.e., no airguns). Additional information on these types of equipment is provided in Chapter 3 and 

Appendix D. Calculated radial distances to any of the isopleths (i.e., NMFS SPL thresholds) from a 

source such as an airgun array are dependent upon the size and orientation of the sound source and the 

physical characteristics of the marine environment and sediments (e.g., water column stratification, water 

depth, and nature of the seafloor). Calculations of radial distance for each G&G equipment type via 

modeling, albeit not validated, provide a metric for evaluating noise-related impacts to marine mammals

and can account for differences in environmental parameters that may affect sound propagation and 

attenuation. Results of sound propagation modeling from sound sources associated with the proposed 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-57

action are shown in Appendix D, Tables D-22 and D-23. Appendix D also presents details of the 

acoustic modeling that generated these results. Based on a recent sound source verification study on a 

boomer system (Martin et al., 2012), it is believed that the source level values of the representative 

boomer modeled significantly overestimated the actual source levels achieved in the field environment; 

suggested revised and predicted sound propagation results for the representative boomer are included in 

Appendix D, Attachment Table A-1. 

Most marine mammal species that are likely to occur within the AOI are cetaceans, with few 

pinnipeds (generally present in small numbers within the AOI from Delaware to Maryland) and manatees 

(potentially present in southern, near-coastal waters of the AOI). The vast majority of these species fall 

within the low- or mid-frequency hearing category (Table 4-6). While low-frequency cetaceans would be 

expected to hear airguns, the mid-frequency cetacean species have auditory bandwidths of best hearing 

that overlap only slightly with the frequencies of maximum airgun output. For most of the mid-frequency 

cetacean species, including the endangered sperm whale, the injury criteria proposed by Southall et al. 

(2007) and general conclusions on behavioral response would be expected to be applicable; direct recent 

information on behavioral responses in sperm whales to seismic airguns is available (e.g., Miller et al., 

2009). While there are no direct hearing data available for the endangered mysticetes that occur in the 

area (NARW, blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, and sei whale) (Ketten, 2000), these whales are 

classified within the low-frequency cetacean functional marine mammal hearing group (7 Hz-22 kHz) 

(Frankel et al., 1995; Clark and Ellison, 2004; Southall et al., 2007). Information on the auditory 

response of mysticetes has been approximated through anatomical studies of dead animals and modeled 

from other vertebrate hearing. It is therefore possible that auditory threshold models for mysticetes do not 

represent their entire auditory response capabilities.

As described above, the Southall et al. (2007) exposure criteria for injury are based on assumptions 

and extrapolations from mid-frequency cetacean data that may need to be reassessed to some degree 

based on the subsequent measurements of lower onset TTS levels in bottlenose dolphins within their 

range of best hearing sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2010a,b).

In terms of behavioral response, substantial effort has been made and data are available for impulse 

noise (seismic airguns specifically) for mysticetes, though not for all of the species present in the AOI. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) showed that NARWs may be particularly responsive to alarm-like non-impulsive 

noise in controlled exposure studies. Similarly and more recently, Southall et al. (2011) demonstrated 

behavioral responses, and an apparent context-dependence in response based on behavioral state, in some 

blue and fin whales exposed to simulated sonar sounds off the coast of California. The fact that many of 

the mysticetes in the AOI may be engaged in migratory behavior during the course of operations 

(Chapter 4.2.2.1), the increased sensitivity of some other mysticetes (e.g., bowhead and gray whales, 

neither of which occur in the AOI) during migrations should be considered in assessing potential 

responses of species where no direct data on responses to certain sound types (airguns) are available (e.g., 

blue, fin, and sei whales).

Radial distances to the regulatory thresholds for each of the modeled equipment types are outlined in 

Table 4-8. On an instantaneous, single pulse basis, the radii to the 180 dB (rms) isopleth ranges from 

799-2,109 m (2,622-6,920 ft) for the large airgun array, from 76-186 m (249-610 ft) for the small airgun 

array, and from 27-192 m (89-630 ft) for the electromechanical sources. The 160 dB radius ranges from 

5,184-15,305 m (17,009-50,216 ft) for the large airgun array, from 1,294-3,056 m (4,246-10,027 ft) for 

the small airgun array, and from 147-2,138 m (482-7,015 ft) for the electromechanical sources. The 

variability evident in these calculations is attributed to source level, source frequencies and beam patterns, 

and site-specific differences in water depth, water column stratification, and seafloor type. Additional 

discussion regarding modeling results is provided in Appendix D. 

The proposed action includes extensive seismic airgun surveys during the 2012-2020 time period. 

These include 616,174 line km of 2D surveys, 2,500 blocks of 3D surveys (or 120,000 line km, assuming 

48 line km [30 line mi] per block), 900 line km of 3D WAZ and full azimuth (FAZ) coil surveys, 

1,280 line km of VSP surveys, and 175,465 line km of HRG surveys (Table 3-3). Some HRG surveys 

would use electromechanical sound sources (e.g., boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; 

side-scan sonars; and multibeam depth sounders).

Appendix C, Section 3.0 discusses the operational Seismic Airgun and HRG Survey Protocol and 

underwater noise mitigation measures that would be implemented during surveys, including ramp-up of 

airgun arrays, visual monitoring of an acoustic exclusion zone by PSOs, and startup and shutdown 
4-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

requirements. The purpose of these operational measures is to prevent serious injury to marine mammals

(and sea turtles) by helping to ensure that they are not present within an acoustic exclusion zone around 

the sound source defined by a received SPL isopleth of 180 dB re 1 μPa. As shown in Table 4-8, this 

acoustic exclusion zone could extend up to 2,109 m (6,920 ft) from a large airgun array (5,400 in3

) and up 

to 186 m (610 ft) from a small airgun array (90 in3

). For electromechanical sound sources, the 180-dB 

isopleths could extend up to 192 m (630 ft) for an instantaneous, single-pulse basis.

The initial 180 dB calculations for electromechanical sources as listed in Table 4-8 were based on 

nominal source levels and did not take into account the pulse duration. However, the pulses produced by 

all of the electromechanical sources are much shorter than 1 s. As summarized by Au and Hastings 

(2008), when receiving tone pulses, the mammalian ear behaves like an integrator with an “integration 

time constant.” Energy is summed over the duration of a pulse until the pulse is longer than the 

integration time constant. Studies of bottlenose dolphins by Johnson (1968) indicate an integration time 

constant of approximately 100 ms. A 10-ms pulse with a received SPL of 180 dB would be integrated 

over a 100-ms period, resulting in a 10-fold (10 dB) reduction. Using the assumption of a 100-ms 

integration time, the 180-dB radii were recalculated as explained in Appendix D to account for short 

pulse duration. For the boomer, sparker, and multibeam depth sounder, the recalculated 180-dB radius 

was <5 m (16 ft) under all scenarios. The recalculated 180-dB radius ranged from 65-96 m (213-315 ft) 

for the side-scan sonar and from 26-35 m (85-115 ft) for chirp subbottom profiler.

The Level A harassment (injury) criterion is based on the potential for onset of TTS; this criterion is 

conservative because, as discussed above, available data indicate that injury may occur only at higher 

thresholds (see Southall et al., 2007 and Appendix H). If the Seismic Airgun and HRG Survey Protocols 

and underwater noise mitigation measures were 100 percent successful in practice, then by definition all 

Level A harassment of marine mammals would be avoided because no marine mammals would be present 

within the acoustic exclusion zone. However, BOEM expects that operational survey protocols and 

underwater noise mitigation measures would not be 100 percent effective, especially with the use of 

visual observers alone, and so the potential exists to expose some individual marine mammals to sound 

levels exceeding the 180-dB criterion, which could result in temporary or permanent loss of hearing 

(i.e., TTS or PTS, or injury, representing Level A harassment). In this analysis, no lethal takes are 

expected in any case.

By definition, the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol and underwater noise mitigation measures 

implemented during seismic airgun surveys would not completely prevent Level B harassment, which is 

currently defined by a received SPL of 160 dB re 1 μPa for impulse sources. As shown in Table 4-8, this 

zone could extend up to 15.3 km from a large airgun array (5,400 in3

). For the small airgun array (90 in3), 

this zone could extend up to 2.5 or 3.1 km, depending on the geographic location and season modeled.

Marine Mammal Take Estimates

Calculations of incidental take to marine mammals from both seismic and non-seismic sound sources 

associated with the proposed action (Alternative A) scenario are presented in Appendix E. Incidental 

take calculations were made using the AIM© model, which is a 4D, individual-based, Monte Carlo 

statistical model designed to predict the exposure of receivers to any stimulus propagating through space 

and time. The modeling used both the current NMFS criteria for Level A and Level B harassment, as 

well as the Southall et al. (2007) criterion for Level A harassment. 

The acoustic and impact modeling conducted to support this Programmatic EIS is by its very nature 

complex and requires numerous assumptions to predict results in scenarios where

• the period modeled is in the future and spans 5 years, during which the knowledge of 

the source locations and movement, animal locations and movement, 

oceanographic/acoustic conditions, equipment descriptions and specifications, and 

even the time of the year for each survey are not precisely known;

• the details of marine mammal abundances, distributions, and behavior patterns are 

not precisely known and are subject to change as animal populations vary from year 

to year and location to location; and

• the development of new or re-designed survey equipment, survey techniques, survey 

geometries, or even signal processing approaches could change.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-59

Despite uncertainty and variability in future actions, the use of models demands that numerous 

specific details be identified and used during their calculations. Each of the inputs into the models is 

purposely developed to be conservative (overly predictive), and thus conservativeness accumulates 

throughout the analysis. For example, representative sound sources are modeled at highest sound levels 

and always at maximum power and operation; sound levels received by an animal are calculated at 

highest levels; marine mammal density values used likely exceed actual densities; and models do not 

include the effect of all mitigations in reducing take estimates. Additional assumptions that add to the 

conservativeness of the models are noted below. Chapter 1 and Appendices D and E provide greater 

detail on the development and results of these models.

• Acoustic Source Specifications: There is a large variation in the size, configuration, 

and ultimately the source level of the airgun arrays potentially employed during 

surveys. The modeling selected one source that was representative of those used 

(i.e., that it was more powerful than most, about 95 percent, of the sources listed

[Appendix D]) that would be used in the various survey types. However, this 

selection necessitated that the representative source conservatively represented 

sources that were often 10 or more decibels lower in power. Additionally, it was 

assumed that the modeled array was always at maximum power and that all airguns 

were fully operational for fully completed survey scenarios. Similarly, for mineral 

resources surveys, the most conservative parameters for source level, signal 

repetition rate, pulse length, etc. were assumed; this is not always the case for either 

type of source in the field.

• Acoustic Source Modeling: For simplicity, the acoustic modeling replaces the 

actual predicted airgun array sound field with one produced by a point source (i.e., 

one that has a single larger airgun, versus the distributed actual airgun array) and a 

beam pattern. This is fairly accurate in the far-field, which is typically 100-300 m 

from the array center and outward, but within this range (i.e., in the near-field) this 

can greatly overestimate the apparent source level and the subsequent impacts 

calculated. Simply replacing this conservative near-field approximation is feasible 

from a mathematical modeling point of view. However, since it is highly dependent 

on the actual source parameters, it would be difficult to justify it in this Programmatic 

EIS, and it would greatly enlarge the modeling effort while not necessarily remaining 

conservative.

• Acoustic Propagation Modeling: Typically, the acoustic parameters used in 

acoustic modeling (including sound velocity profile, bottom sediment 

types/distributions/thicknesses/coefficients, and surface wind and wave values) are 

averaged seasonal values over reasonably sampled areas and time periods. These 

averaging processes remove most local variability while capturing the general effect 

of the sound speed on acoustic propagation. This generally tends to underestimate 

the transmission loss and therefore overestimate the received levels at all ranges to 

some degree. Actual in situ propagation therefore typically displays much more 

fading and disruption of the signal, especially for signals shorter than 1 s (i.e., 

airguns). 

• Acoustic Modeling of the Multi-Path: When a signal propagates through the 

ocean, it typically follows many pathways between the source and a receiver (e.g. an 

animal). For example, one path may be directly between the source and receiver, 

while others may reflect off of the ocean surface or bottom before arriving at the 

receiver. For most of the models used in acoustic propagation analyses, the model 

assumes that the signals continue until all of the significant paths have arrived at the 

receiver, then the energy from these different pathways is summed to derive a final 

received value. This is a conservative approach for short signals, like airgun pulses, 

and this spreading of a signal (and its energy) generally increases as range increases. 

This is not a simple or easy correction to make since it can also be highly dependent 

on the receiver’s position in range and depth. Therefore, the conservative assumption 

is used. Additionally, real-world localized effects, such as bubble plumes from 

breaking waves and the scattering of sound from plants and air present near the 
4-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

ocean’s surface, also greatly reduce received levels for animals within 3-6 m (10-20 

ft) of the ocean’s surface.

• Marine Mammal Density Values: Marine mammal density values are typically 

very conservative. As a simple check of their conservatism, a calculation consisting 

of multiplying each density value by the area that it covers and then summing these 

values results in total population values that greatly exceed those identified in the 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment reports.

• Marine Mammal Congregations: Marine mammals, especially dolphins, often 

occur in pods or groups of animals. When this occurs, the actual density near that 

pod can be greater than those used in these calculations, but the corresponding 

reduction of density for much of the surrounding areas has been decreased. 

Statistically, this averages out for multiple model runs that are not accounting for 

this. However, when this occurs during actual operations, sources may be turned off, 

especially since large pods of dolphins, which often can consist of hundreds of 

animals, are much easier to observe and mitigate for.

• Mitigation: The calculations included here do not include most mitigation effects 

that would reduce the potential for take. The proposed mitigation measures are 

focused on reducing physical injury and represent a best practices approach. 

However, there are limitations to mitigation measures effectiveness. For example 

visual monitoring and PAM are not 100 percent effective due to a variety of factors 

including the physical conditions; presence of animals at the surface; difficulty in 

species identification; vocalization of animals; lack of knowledge regarding sound 

produced by some species; and the regular masking of lower frequency vocalizations, 

such as those produced by baleen whales, by vessel noise. There would be one 

exception to this statement in that the take estimates did take into account the effect 

of the NARW airgun time-area closure outlined in Alternative A and described in 

Appendix E, Section 7.4.3. 

These conservatively modeled take estimates do not alone reflect BOEM’s determination of the 

impact to marine mammals. The impact assessment approach used by BOEM is described in detail in 

Chapter 4. It considers the modeled take estimates, the best available information on marine mammal 

distribution, current science assessing the potential effects of G&G surveys on marine mammals, and an 

evaluation of how employed mitigation can reduce these effects (recognizing that all mitigations cannot 

be effective 100% of time). This assessment is then compared against the significance criteria (described 

in Chapter 4.2.2.2.1) to identify an anticipated level of impact. Future site-specific actions proposed by 

operators will, as necessary, follow the MMPA procedures for issuance of an Incidental Take 

Authorization (ITA), which will again evaluate potential impacts.

As discussed in Appendix E, the calculations of incidental take for this analysis were made using the

U.S. Navy’s Navy Operating Area (OPAREA) Density Estimates (NODE) database (USDON, 2007b), 

which were at the time the best available marine mammal density estimates for the Western Atlantic 

Ocean, and specifically for BOEM Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. This analysis also used the 

best available information at the time to identify mitigation plans for reducing or eliminating the potential 

for adverse effects. It is noted, where applicable, limits to existing knowledge about the effectiveness of 

certain mitigations. It is anticipated that NOAA will develop and release subsequent and updated Atlantic 

cetacean density data that will be available for site-specific permitting decisions. Further, each specific 

permit will require additional analyses where BOEM employs an adaptive management approach to 

adjust mitigation based on the best available information at that time.

Activities associated with proposed G&G activities that involve the use of airguns to characterize the 

shallow and deep structure of the shelf, slope, and deepwater ocean environments are discussed in 

Chapter 3. These include both oil and gas exploration and development surveys and postlease HRG

surveys of oil and gas leases. This analysis of potential impacts of seismic airgun surveys associated with 

these proposed activities to marine mammals within the AOI are based on estimates of total Level A and 

Level B incidental take from each of these seismic activities. Methods for the estimation of incidental 

take are provided in Appendix E, and the results are provided in Table 4-9 (Level A incidental take 

using Southall criteria), Table 4-10 (Level A incidental take using historic NMFS criterion [180 dB

SPL]), andTable 4-11 (Level B incidental take using historic NMFS criterion [160 dB SPL]). 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-61

Level A Incidental Take Estimates

This analysis of potential Level A impacts to marine mammals from seismic airgun survey activities 

was based on the examination of combined seismic airgun survey activities is presented in Tables 4-9

and 4-10. It should be noted that oil and gas seismic airgun surveys would use other equipment, 

including subbottom profilers, side-scan sonars, and depth sounders; because these sources would be 

operating concurrently with the airguns, and airguns represent the highest energy source. This analysis of 

impacts was based on the assumption that there would be no additional take from the electromechanical 

sources operating concurrently with airguns. It is possible, however, that noises of the other 

electromechanical systems may operate across different frequency bands that would not necessarily be 

masked by the low-frequency band of airguns.

Total incidental take estimates for proposed airgun seismic surveys using 180-dB criterion (Level A 

take) are presented in Table 4-10. As noted above, these estimates are considered conservative 

predictions of potential taking based on the model and its assumptions and qualifications (described above

and in Appendix E). These estimates assume all activities under the proposed action will occur. They 

assume the highest levels of anticipated marine mammal densities. They should not be considered as 

expected levels of actual take. Potential Level A take for all airgun seismic survey types has been 

conservatively predicted for all listed marine mammal species except the West Indian manatee and 

includes the following:

• sperm whale (45-310 individuals per year; total: 977 individuals for the project 

duration);

• humpback whale (2-12 individuals per year; total: 39 individuals for the project 

duration); and

• all other listed cetacean species (less than 9 individuals taken per year).

Level A take from airgun surveys are conservatively predicted for all nonlisted marine mammal

species except the three modeled pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray seal, and harbor seal). It is expected that 

due to the similar density of harp seal with the other pinnipeds within the AOI, no Level A take would 

occur. Because of the relative distributions and densities of nonlisted species within the AOI, Level A 

take estimates of nonlisted cetacean species are less than 100 individuals per survey year during the 

project period, except for the short-finned pilot whale (840-4,631 individuals), bottlenose dolphin

(2,091-11,748 individuals), short-beaked common dolphin (1,114-6,146 individuals), Atlantic spotted 

dolphin (989-5,848 individuals), Risso’s dolphin (551-3,180 individuals), pantropical spotted dolphin 

(146-876 individuals), long-finned pilot whale (97-582 individuals), Cuvier’s beaked whale

(83-541 individuals), and Clymene dolphin (67-406 individuals). 

As a comparison, Level A incidental take estimates for airgun seismic surveys using the Southall et 

al. (2007) criterion are presented in Table 4-9. Incidental take is predicted for all listed species except the 

fin whale. Estimated take is less than one individual per survey year (beginning in 2014) except for the 

humpback whale (0.7-5.9 individuals), blue whale (0.2-1.6 individuals), and Bryde’s whale 

(0.1-1.2 individuals). Level A take is predicted for all nonlisted cetacean species. Species with the

highest estimates of take (>50 individuals per survey year) include the following outer continental shelf 

and slope species:

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (202-1,496 individuals per year); 

• striped dolphin (158-1,020 individuals per year); 

• Risso’s dolphin (87-731 individuals per year); 

• pantropical spotted dolphin (35-263 individuals per year); 

• short-beaked common dolphin (19-225 individuals per year); 

• short-finned pilot whale (12-154 individuals per year); 

• Clymene dolphin (17-126 individuals per year); and

• long-finned pilot whale (15-118 individuals per year). 
4-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

BOEM emphasizes that these estimates should be seen as highly conservative of potential take 

without the consideration of most mitigation with the exception of the time-area closure described in 

Alternative A. They should not be considered as expected levels of actual take.

Level B Incidental Take Estimates

Table 4-11 presents estimates of total Level B (160-dB criterion) incidental take for all seismic

airgun surveys. As noted previously, oil and gas seismic airgun surveys would use other equipment, 

including subbottom profilers, side-scan sonars, and depth sounders; because these sources would be 

operating concurrently with the airguns, and airguns represent the highest energy source, take calculations 

were not provided for other sources operating at the same time.

These estimates are considered to be highly conservative predictions of potential taking based on the 

model and its assumptions and qualifications (described above and in Appendix E). These estimates 

assume all activities under the proposed action will occur. They assume the highest levels of anticipated 

marine mammal densities. They also do not factor in effects of mitigation methods associated with the 

Alternative A scenario except for the time-area closure as described in Alternative A. Therefore, these 

estimates should be seen as highly conservative estimates of potential take without the consideration of 

mitigation.

For listed species, total estimated Level B take for all airgun seismic survey types has been

conservatively predicted at levels of over 100 individuals per survey year (2014-2020) for all listed 

marine mammal species except the West Indian manatee. The sperm whale had the highest number of 

estimated annual Level B takes, ranging from 4,361-30,356 individuals per year during the survey period. 

Estimated annual Level B take of the NARW during this period ranges from 60-224 individuals.

Annual Level B take was predicted for all nonlisted marine mammal species except the three modeled 

pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray seal, and harbor seal). It is expected that due to the similar density of harp 

seal with the other pinnipeds within the AOI, no Level B take would occur. Cetacean species with annual 

Level B take estimates over 100 individuals for most survey years (2014-2020) include both shelf and 

shelf edge-slope species, including dolphins, beaked whales, “blackfish” whales (a grouping composed of 

killer, pilot, false killer, and melon-headed whales and Risso’s dolphin), and the harbor porpoise. Highest 

annual Level B take estimates are predicted for the following marine mammals:

• bottlenose dolphin (1,151,442 individuals);

• short-beaked common dolphin (602,424 individuals);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (573,121 individuals); 

• short-finned pilot whale (453,897 individuals);

• striped dolphin (391,376 individuals); and

• Risso’s dolphin (311,717 individuals).

BOEM emphasizes that these numbers should be seen as highly conservative estimates of potential 

take without the consideration of most mitigation with the exception of the time-area closure described in 

Alternative A. They should not be considered as expected levels of actual take.

Conclusions

In review, BOEM has considered available information to determine what potential effects to marine 

mammals may occur from the proposed action. This includes consideration of available information on 

activities defined under the proposed action and available information on potential effects of these sound 

sources and other sound types on marine mammals. This analysis also includes consideration of the 

modeled marine mammal take estimates (see incidental take calculations presented in Tables 4-10 and 4-

11 for seismic airgun survey-related noise). Importantly, these estimates are a starting point meant to 

conservatively model potential takes without consideration of how most mitigation and other project 

designs can reduce potential take. The inputs to the model are meant to be highly conservative (i.e., use 

highest estimated animal densities, assume all species are equally sensitive to received sound frequencies 

and levels) in order to get this upper limit. They are not meant to provide expected levels of actual take. 

By setting this upper limit, the analysis can then consider which mitigations can be applied to reduce take, 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-63

both programmatically (i.e., at this Programmatic EIS level) or project-specifically (i.e., through 

site/permit-specific analyses).

Based on all of this information, it is likely that seismic airgun survey-related noise from G&G

activities may impact individual and groups of marine mammals within the AOI, including listed and 

nonlisted cetacean species on the continental shelf, shelf edge, and slope. As noted previously, baleen 

whales are believed to be low-frequency specialists with best hearing sensitivity below 3 kHz (Ketten, 

2000). Smaller odontocetes are most sensitive in the 30-120 kHz range (Au, 1993) and relatively 

insensitive to low-frequency sounds (Au et al., 1997). It is assumed that baleen whales, in general, are 

more susceptible to low-frequency anthropogenic sounds than are odontocetes (Ketten, 2000). Marine 

mammal species with the highest take estimates are the odontocetes (e.g., delphinids), all of which are 

mid- to high-frequency specialists and are relatively insensitive to low-frequency sounds. Mid- and 

high-frequency specialists (e.g., delphinids) would be more susceptible to electromechanical sources than 

seismic sources.

There are also differences among modeling results for Level A takes developed using SPL and SEL 

metrics. For example, AIM© modeling results using Southall et al. (2007) criterion for Level A take 

(using the SEL metric) estimated levels of less than one individual sperm whale per year. By comparison, 

using the 180-dB criterion (SPL), estimates of Level A sperm whale take were the highest of all the listed 

cetacean species. Furthermore, the Survey Protocols (Appendix C, Sections 3.2 and 3.3) that would be

implemented to help ensure that marine mammals are not present within the 180-dB exclusion zone

around the sound source are not considered in either analysis (180-dB or Southall et al.). Although these 

measures are not assumed to be 100 percent effective, they are expected to significantly reduce the risk of 

Level A harassment to marine mammals. Limitations to the effectiveness of mitigation measures are due 

to a variety of factors including the physical conditions; presence of animals at the surface; difficulty in 

species identification; vocalization of animals; lack of knowledge regarding sound produced by some 

species; and the regular masking of lower frequency vocalizations, such as those produced by baleen 

whales, by vessel noise. 

Among the listed species, Level A take estimated using the 180-dB rms SPL criterion would be 

highest (in decreasing order and without underwater noise mitigation) for sperm whale, humpback whale, 

fin whale, blue whale, NARW, and sei whales, although individual annual takes would generally be <9 

individuals except for sperm and humpback whales. NARW take estimates ranged from 1-2 individuals 

per year. The potential consequences of Level A harassment would be expected to include injury onset, 

specifically the onset of TTS. Physical injuries from seismic noise are assumed in this analysis to be 

limited to TTS or (in the worst case) PTS impairment of individuals or small groups of cetaceans. The 

onset of TTS may result in one or more impacts to an individual or small group. For example, decreased 

foraging success may be realized for those species that use sound in this capacity (i.e., sperm whales). 

The TTS also has the potential to decrease the range over which socially significant communication takes 

place (e.g., communication between competing males, between males and females during mating season, 

between mothers and offspring). It is generally recognized that the potential effects of TTS on the 

relative importance of these impacts are problematic only when exposures and resulting TTS are 

prolonged.

Again, these Level A take estimates are meant to be highly conservative upper limits of take that do 

not consider the role of mitigation in reducing take with the exception of the time-area closure described 

in Alternative A. They are not expected levels of actual take.

Using the current NMFS criteria, modeling of Level B take estimates suggest large numbers of 

individual cetaceans could experience non-injurious impacts from seismic airgun surveys during the 

project period. For example, Level B takes of bottlenose dolphins are estimated to range between 

204,924 individuals (during 2016) to over one million individuals (during 2015). Given the estimated 

stock size of these populations (Table 4-4) and projected level of activities (Table 3-3), it is likely that 

individual animals would experience multiple exposures over the course of the study period. It is 

presumed that these impacts would largely consist of harassment and would elicit behavioral alterations 

such as disturbance of activities, avoidance, or temporary displacement from areas of ensonification. 

The behavioral responses of marine mammals to acoustic stimuli vary widely, depending on the 

species, the context of their activities at the time of ensonification (feeding, migrating, calving, etc.), the 

properties of the stimuli, and prior exposure of the animals (Wartzok et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Species variability in response to anthropogenic noise is also a factor, as distinctions need to be made 
4-64 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

between taxonomic groups that have widely different hearing and sensitivity frequencies (NRC, 2005). 

For example, as previously noted, Hatch et al. (2012) discussed the loss of acoustic habitat for NARWs 

and how the loss of habitat continues to increase with commercial shipping. The loss of acoustic habitat 

may mean the masking of communication (which then could impact mating, taking care of young, and 

migrating) or a disruption of feeding, particularly for those species that use sound when locating prey 

(Hatch et al., 2012). Other mysticete species, such as the blue whale, demonstrated change in vocal 

behavior during low-medium power seismic surveys (sparker) which have peak frequency bands 

overlapping those used by baleen whales such as the blue whale. These changes in behavior ranged from 

reduced or a cessation in vocalization rates to increased rates (Di Iorio and Clark, 2010). Recent studies 

suggest that anthropogenic sounds, such as seismic airgun surveys, may affect behaviors of vocalizing 

baleen whales at distances greater than what is presently calculated, based on sound source characteristics 

and sound propagation modeling (Risch et al., 2012). It is important to note that available information on 

the auditory thresholds of odontocetes have been determined using captive animals that have been 

habituated (trained) to respond to operant conditioning and to cooperate with Audio Evoked Potential 

auditory testing. It is possible that these individual animals may only approximate the hearing and 

behavioral responses of wild animals, which often respond as a group to sound stimulus and may be 

adapted to be more responsive to environmental sounds.

Seismic airgun surveys associated with the proposed activity are planned to occur in open ocean areas 

where these highly motile cetaceans may move freely to avoid the relatively slow-moving sound source 

and so would avoid exposure to injurious sound levels and even levels that would negatively affect 

behavior. Surveys would also be designed to avoid entrapment of animals between a sound source and 

shore. Further, the surveys would be performed in a systematic fashion along preplotted transects, so it is 

presumed that exposure to elevated sound would be somewhat localized and temporary in duration, but 

Level B harassment would affect a larger number of individuals than Level A harassment. 

The Survey Protocols under Alternative A specify mitigation measures for marine mammals that are 

meant to eliminate Level A takes and reduce Level B takes, including an acoustic exclusion zone, rampup requirements, visual monitoring by PSOs, and array shutdown requirements. Even with these 

mitigation measures, airgun surveys may temporarily displace animals from the survey area(s); however, 

these displaced individuals may be in a particular area for specific reasons, such as feeding, community 

coherence, family bonding, and breeding opportunities. Given each of these effects can mean something 

different to individual animals, it is impossible to know precisely how many animals will be affected.

Therefore, this analysis uses the upper limit of potential take provided in the highly conservative 

modeled estimates, applies what is known about the likelihood of species in the action area reacting to 

seismic airgun noise, considers the range of responses from animals that may occur, and applies 

mitigation to eliminate/limit the potential for Level A harassment and reduce the potential for Level B 

harassment. Based on this analysis, the effects of project-related seismic airgun survey noise on marine 

mammals within the AOI would be moderate. Most impacts would be limited to short-term disruption of 

acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns, abandonment of activities, or displacement of individual marine 

mammals from discrete areas within the AOI, including both critical and preferred habitats.

Impacts of Non-Airgun HRG Surveys for Renewable Energy and Marine Minerals Sites

The HRG surveys are discussed in Chapter 3. Non-airgun equipment typically used in HRG surveys 

includes single beam and/or multibeam depth sounders, magnetometers, side-scan sonars, and shallow- or 

medium-penetration subbottom profilers (electromechanical sources). Detailed acoustic characteristics of 

electromechanical sources are discussed in Appendix D. Electromechanical sources are adjustable in 

terms of main operating frequency bands. The electromechanical sources can be considered narrow-band 

sources, as the acoustic energy emitted outside the main operating frequency band is negligible. 

Electromechanical sources can be highly directive, with beam widths as narrow as few degrees or less. 

Several electromechanical sound sources, including the 400-kHz side-scan sonar, 200-kHz chirp 

subbottom profiler, and 240-kHz multibeam depth sounder, would operate within a frequency range that 

is inaudible to cetacean species within the AOI. Other frequency outputs from several electromechanical 

sources would be audible to marine mammals in the AOI, including the 0.2-16-kHz boomer, 100-kHz 

side-scan sonar, and 3.5- and 12-kHz chirp subbottom profilers.

This analysis of potential impacts of non-airgun HRG surveys associated with proposed activities to 

marine mammals within the AOI are based on estimates of total Level A and Level B incidental take from 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-65

each activity. Methods for the estimation of incidental take are provided in Appendix E, and the results 

are provided in Table 4-12 (Level A incidental take using Southall criteria), Table 4-13 (Level A 

incidental take using historic NMFS criterion [180 dB SPL]), and Table 4-14 (Level B incidental take 

using historic NMFS criterion [160 dB SPL]). 

The estimates to follow are considered to be the upper limit of potential taking based on highly 

conservative models and its assumptions and qualifications (described above and in Appendix E). These 

estimates assume all activities under the proposed action will occur. They assume the highest levels of 

anticipated marine mammal densities. They also do not factor in effects of most mitigation methods 

associated with the Alternative A scenario. Therefore, these estimates should be seen as highly 

conservative estimates of potential take without the consideration of mitigation and should not be 

considered as expected levels of actual take.

Level A Incidental Take Estimates

Incidental take estimates for proposed non-airgun HRG surveys using 180-dB criterion (Level A take) 

are listed in Table 4-13. Level A take was predicted for all listed marine mammal species except the 

West Indian manatee at levels of less than one individual per year. Modeling results also predict Level A 

harassment for all nonlisted species except the three modeled pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray seal, and 

harbor seal). Because the density of harp seal within the AOI is expected to be similar to that of the other 

pinnipeds, no Level A harassment would occur. Take estimates for nonlisted cetacean species are less 

than one individual per survey year except for the following species:

• bottlenose dolphin (<1-6 individuals);

• Atlantic spotted dolphin (1-5 individuals);

• short-beaked common dolphin (1-4 individuals); and

• short-finned pilot whale, Risso’s dolphin, and striped dolphin (<1-2 individuals).

Level A incidental take estimates for non-airgun HRG surveys using the Southall et al. (2007) 

criterion are listed in Table 4-12. Level A take is predicted for all listed species except the humpback 

whale and the manatee, and estimated at levels of less than one individual per year. Level A take using 

the Southall et al. (2007) criterion is predicted for all nonlisted marine mammal species except the 

long-finned pilot whale, northern bottlenose whale, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, and the three modeled 

pinniped species (hooded seal, gray seal, and harbor seal). Because the density of harp seal within the 

AOI is expected to be similar to that of the other pinnipeds, no Level A harassment take would occur. 

Estimated take levels were less than one individual per year except for Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(<1-7 individuals), short-beaked common dolphin (0-5 individuals), Risso’s dolphin (0-2 individuals), 

and bottlenose dolphin (<1-2 individuals).

Differences in Level A incidental take estimates using 180 dB and Southall et al. (2007) criteria are 

because of both individual species density differences within modeled sites within the AOI and their 

functional hearing groups.

Importantly, these takes are highly conservative estimates of the upper limit of potential takes. They 

should not be considered expected levels of actual take. They use conservative inputs (i.e., use highest 

estimated animal densities, assume all species are equally sensitive to received sound frequencies and 

levels) and do not consider the effect of most mitigation in reducing take. By setting this upper limit, the 

analysis can then consider which mitigations can be applied to reduce take, both programmatically (i.e., at 

this Programmatic EIS level) or project-specifically (i.e., through site/permit-specific analyses). 

Therefore, it is expected that values for Level A incidental take presented in Appendix E are 

overestimated.

Level B Incidental Take Estimates

From Table 4-14, AIM© modeling estimated non-airgun HRG survey Level B take estimates for all 

listed marine mammal species except the manatee at levels of less than one individual per year for all 

species except the sperm whale. The sperm whale was predicted to have Level B harassment takes 

ranging from less than one individual during the proposed activities from 2012-2017 to levels of 

4-12 individuals from 2018-2020. Level B take was estimated for all nonlisted marine mammal species, 
4-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

except the pinniped species. Highest annual Level B take estimates (above 50 individuals per survey 

year) are predicted for the bottlenose dolphin (632 individuals), Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(490 individuals), short-beaked common dolphin (379 individuals), short-finned pilot whale

(227 individuals), Risso’s dolphin (170 individuals), and striped dolphin (155 individuals).

As noted previously, these takes are highly conservative estimates of the upper limit of potential 

takes. They should not be considered expected levels of actual take. They use conservative inputs (i.e., 

use highest estimated animal densities, assume all species are equally sensitive to received sound 

frequencies and levels) and do not consider the effect of most mitigation in reducing take. By setting this 

upper limit, the analysis can then consider which mitigations can be applied to reduce take, both 

programmatically (i.e., at this Programmatic EIS level) or project-specifically (i.e., through 

site/permit-specific analyses).

Conclusions 

In conclusion, it is possible that noise from non-airgun HRG surveys may impact individual marine 

mammals within the AOI, in particular because the majority of surveys would occur in water depths 

<40 m (131 ft), in combination with the high densities of delphinids in nearshore waters and the overlap 

in source frequencies and hearing thresholds. In this analysis, there are no lethal impacts predicted and 

Level A incidental take estimates of most species are less than one individual per year (and again are 

considered highly conservative overestimates). The highest level of annual Level A take from non-airgun 

HRG surveys (using the 180-dB criterion) includes six individual bottlenose dolphins. Level A take 

estimates that were calculated utilizing only the 180-dB criterion assume that all of the species are equally 

sensitive to received sound frequencies and levels and, unlike estimates made using Southall et al. (2007) 

criteria, do not consider functional hearing sensitivity ranges for the various species. Operational 

mitigation and monitoring measures would be implemented during non-airgun HRG surveys to help

ensure that marine mammals are not present within a pre-determined acoustic exclusion zone around the 

sound source, both prior to and during its operation (Appendix C). For this analysis, it was assumed that 

marine mammals would actively avoid active HRG survey sound sources within the open ocean 

environment of the AOI. The HRG Survey Protocol that specify mitigation measures for marine 

mammals are detailed in Chapter 2.1.3.2.2 and Appendix C. These include operation restrictions within 

the NARW critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs, establishment of a 200-m (656-ft) acoustic exclusion zone 

for HRG surveys operating at and below 200 kHz, visual monitoring of this acoustic exclusion zone by 

PSOs, and sound source shutdown requirements. The mitigative monitoring measures, in conjunction 

with selective avoidance of individual animals are also expected to significantly reduce Level A 

incidental take. Operational restrictions within NARW critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs are designed to 

further protect the critically endangered NARW, both during seasonal migrations and its winter calving 

period as included in the HRG Survey Protocol. Non-airgun surveys should utilize acoustic devices that 

operate at frequencies higher than 30 kHz when operationally feasible, as NARWs are likely to be unable 

to hear sounds above 22 kHz (Parks et al., 2007).

Based on the results of this analysis and proposed mitigation measures, the effects of project-related 

non-airgun HRG survey noise on marine mammals within the AOI are expected to be minor. Physical 

injuries from HRG-related seismic noise are assumed in this analysis to be limited to TTS or (in the worst 

case) PTS impairment of individuals or small groups of cetaceans but is not expected to occur with the 

imposed mitigation. Most impacts would be limited to short-term disruption of behavioral patterns or 

displacement of individual marine mammals from discrete areas within the AOI, including both critical 

and preferred habitats.

Vessel and Equipment Noise

The G&G activities in all three program areas would generate vessel and equipment noise that could 

disturb marine mammals. The types of sound produced by these sources are nonpulsed, or continuous. 

The current acoustic threshold established by NMFS is 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for sub-injurious exposure

to a continuous noise source. This threshold was based on avoidance responses observed in whales, 

specifically from research on migrating gray whales and bowhead whales (Malme et al., 1983, 1984, 

1988; Richardson et al., 1986, 1990; Dahlheim and Ljungblad, 1990; Richardson and Malme, 1993). 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-67

As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.2, vessel noise is a combination of narrow-band (tonal) and broadband 

sound (Richardson et al., 1995). Tones typically dominate up to about 50 Hz, whereas broadband sounds 

may extend to 100 kHz. The dominant source of noise from vessels is from the propeller operation, 

including cavitation, singing, and propulsion, and the intensity of this noise is largely related to ship size 

and speed. Vessel and equipment noise from G&G vessels, including survey and support vessels 

associated with activities described in the proposed action, would produce low levels of noise. 

Broadband source levels for most small ships (a category that would include survey vessels and support 

vessels for drilling of COST wells or shallow test wells) are anticipated to be in the range of 170-180 dB

re 1 μPa at 1 m and source levels for smaller boats (a category that would include survey vessels for 

renewable energy and marine minerals sites) are in the range of 150-170 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson 

et al., 1995). These noise levels are within the audible range for all cetacean and pinniped species and, 

near the source, exceed NMFS threshold for Level B harassment by continuous sound sources. In the 

open ocean, deep water environment where spherical spreading conditions apply, an attenuation of 60 dB 

(e.g., reduction from a source level of 180 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m to the 120 dB continuous noise threshold) 

would occur within 1 km of the source. Where modified spherical spreading conditions may apply, the 

distance from source to the 120 dB threshold would be greater.

As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.3.1, survey vessels conducting 2D and 3D seismic airgun surveys are 

large in size and would account for most of the proposed survey miles traveled, and these surveys could 

occur anywhere within the AOI. Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy

would be smaller and operate mainly at specific sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water 

depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. Similarly, vessels conducting 

G&G surveys or sampling for marine minerals would be operating mainly at specific borrow sites in 

water depths less than 30 m (98 ft). Survey vessels for nearshore projects are expected to make daily 

round trips to their shore base, whereas the larger seismic vessels can remain offshore for weeks or 

months. It is anticipated that one to three diesel-powered survey and support vessels would be associated 

with G&G seismic survey activities; WAZ surveys may utilize additional vessels. For this analysis, it is 

expected that the proposed additional volume of vessel traffic would not constitute a significant increase 

to existing vessel traffic within the AOI.

The effects of noise produced by moving geophysical survey and support vessels on marine mammals

are difficult to assess because of the wide array of reports of their observed behavioral responses, both 

between and among species. Several species of small toothed cetaceans have been observed to avoid 

boats when they are approached to within 0.5-1.5 km (0.3-0.9 mi), with occasional reports of avoidance at 

greater distances (Richardson et al., 1995). Reports of responses of cetacean species to moving power 

vessels are variable, both between species and temporally. North Atlantic right whales may change 

behaviors, specifically calling behavior (shifting call frequency), to compensate for increased 

low-frequency noise, such as vessel-related noise (Parks et al., 2007). Studies of NARWs within specific 

areas of high shipping traffic also showed decreased stress-related hormone metabolites following 

reductions in local ship traffic levels (Rolland et al., 2012). Most beaked whales tend to avoid 

approaching vessels (e.g., Würsig et al., 1998) and may dive for an extended period when approached by 

a vessel (e.g., Kasuya, 1986). Northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus), on the other hand, 

are sometimes quite tolerant of slow-moving vessels (Reeves et al., 1993; Hooker et al., 2001). Dolphins 

may tolerate boats of all sizes, often approaching and riding the bow and stern waves (Shane et al., 1986). 

At other times, dolphin species that are known to be attracted to boats will avoid them. Such avoidance is 

often linked to previous boat-based harassment of the animals (Richardson et al., 1995). Coastal 

bottlenose dolphins that are the object of whale watching activities have been observed to swim 

erratically (Acevedo, 1991), remain submerged for longer periods of time (Janik and Thompson, 1996; 

Nowacek et al., 2001), display less cohesiveness among group members (Cope et al., 1999), whistle more 

frequently (Scarpaci et al., 2000), and be restless often (Constantine et al., 2004) when boats were nearby. 

Pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) and spinner dolphins (S. longirostris) in the eastern 

tropical Pacific, where they have been targeted by the tuna fishing industry because of their association 

with these fish, show avoidance of survey vessels up to 11 km (6.8 mi) away (Au and Perryman, 1982; 

Hewitt, 1985), whereas spinner dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico were observed bowriding the survey 

vessel in all 14 sightings of this species during one survey (Würsig et al., 1998). Harbor porpoises tend to 

avoid boats. In the Bay of Fundy, Polacheck and Thorpe (1990) found harbor porpoises to be more likely 

to be swimming away from the transect line of their survey vessel than swimming toward it and more 
4-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

likely to be heading away from the vessel when they were within 400 m (1,312 ft) of it. Similarly, off the 

west coast of North America, Polacheck and Thorpe (1990) observed harbor porpoises avoiding a survey 

vessel by moving rapidly out of its path within 1 km (0.6 mi) of that vessel.

Marine geophysical vessels are designed to operate quietly to minimize potential sources of 

interference to collected seismic data (IAGC, 2002). From these reports, it is conservative to assume that 

noise associated with survey vessels associated with the proposed activity but not actively surveying may, 

in some cases, elicit behavioral changes in individual marine mammals that are in close proximity to these 

vessels. These behavioral changes may include evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in 

swimming direction and/or speed. Because these vessels are generally quiet, machinery and other 

associated propulsion-related noise is transitory and generally does not propagate at great distances from 

the vessel. For a majority of the time that seismic vessels are underway, they would be operating their 

airguns or other active acoustic sound sources; under these conditions, Level B take numbers have already 

been accounted for. During those periods when non-seismic vessels are operating, or when seismic 

vessels have shut down their airguns, the potential for behavioral impacts from vessel and equipment 

noise remains. Under the proposed action, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include 

guidance for maintaining safe distances between G&G vessels and protected species to minimize 

potential impacts from vessel and equipment noise and the avoidance of vessel collisions with these 

protected species. The guidance would be similar to Joint BOEM-BSEE NTL 2012-G01 (“Vessel Strike 

Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”), which incorporates NMFS “Vessel Strike 

Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners” addressing protected species identification, vessel 

strike avoidance, and injured/dead protected species reporting (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012a). 

Guidance protocols are discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.1. 

For the proposed activities, it is assumed that this guidance should avoid or minimize potential 

negative impacts to marine mammals from both the presence of vessels and the noise they produce. The 

proposed action also includes a time-area closure for all G&G surveys using airguns in the NARW critical 

habitat area from November 15 to April 15 and in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs from 

November 1 through April 30. Authorization for non-airgun HRG surveys include operation restrictions 

within the NARW critical habitat and DMAs that are expected to reduce vessel-related noise impacts to 

this species during its seasonal migration and calving/nursing periods. These restrictions are detailed in 

Chapter 2.1.3.2. Based on the proposed volume of vessel traffic associated with project activities within 

the AOI and the presumption that individual or groups of marine mammals within the AOI may be 

familiar with various and common vessel-related noises, particularly within frequented shipping lanes, the 

effects of project-related (non-survey) vessel and equipment noise on marine mammals within the AOI 

would be negligible to minor. 

Other sound sources associated with the proposed activity include drilling-related noises during the 

completion of up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells in the Mid- or South Atlantic 

Planning Areas during the time period of the Programmatic EIS. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.2.2, 

noise from drilling operations includes strong tonal components at low frequencies (<500 Hz), including 

infrasonic frequencies in at least some cases (Richardson et al., 1995). Machinery noise can be 

continuous or transient, and variable in intensity. Noise levels vary with the type of drilling rig and the 

water depth. Drilling-related noise from jack-up platforms is continuous and generally of very low 

frequencies (near 5 Hz), and therefore expected to be within the audible range of only baleen whales. 

Sound source levels of drilling from jack-up platforms may range from 119-127 dB re 1 μPa at nearfield 

locations. Drilling-related noises from semi-submersible platforms in deeper waters ranges in frequencies 

from 10-4,000 Hz, and therefore audible to all cetacean and pinniped species within the AOI. Drilling 

sound source levels from semi-submersible platforms are estimated at 154 dB re 1 μPa-m. Source levels 

for drillships have been reported to be as high as 191 dB re 1 μPa during drilling.

It is expected that marine mammals would detect drilling-related noises within a radius of audibility. 

The range of audibility radii is based on the sound source level and local attenuation from factors such as 

water depth and seafloor characteristics. Based on the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) acoustic sub-injurious 

threshold established by NMFS for continuous sounds, it is expected that jack-up drilling operations 

would affect only baleen whales, and semi-submersible rigs would affect all marine mammal species 

within the 120 dB acoustic radii; for 154 dB source levels from a semisubmersible (Chapter 3.5.1.2.2), 

the 120 dB radius would be 50 m (164 ft) under conditions where spherical spreading applies. In those 

instances where a drillship will be employed (i.e., in deepwater where seafloor anchoring is not feasible), 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-69

drilling noise may be expected to attenuate under spherical spreading conditions in most circumstances; 

the 120 dB radius would extend 3.5 km (2.1 mi) from the drillship. In those project-specific cases where 

drilling operations are proposed, and the sound source and propagation may be of concern, BOEM will 

consider the acoustic effects from these activities, along with other IPFs specific to these activities. It is 

expected that these sources of noise would elicit alterations of behavior such as changes in swimming 

direction or speed. However, studies indicate that the sensitivity of marine mammals to drilling sound 

varies between and within species (Richardson et al., 1990).

There are few drilling operations associated with the proposed activity (up to three COST wells and 

up to five shallow test wells). Mitigation measures associated with Alternative A of this analysis state 

that drilling operations (as well as surveys involving seismic sources [airguns]) would not be authorized 

within NARW critical habitat from November 15 to April 15 and the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. 

SMAs from November 1 to April 30 . With these measures in place, most impacts on NARWs (the 

baleen whale species most likely to regularly occur within inner shelf waters of the AOI) are expected to 

be avoided by the time-area closure. Although NARWs could occur anywhere within the AOI, they are 

most likely to be found in the calving/nursery areas during the winter months and/or near the coast along 

their migratory corridor (Knowlton et al., 2002). Considering the low number of drilling operations, the 

continuous nature of sounds produced during drilling operations, and the mitigation measures in place for 

Alternative A, it is expected that impacts from drilling operations would be minor. 

Vessel Traffic

Many marine mammal species may be vulnerable to physical disturbance from or collisions (ship 

strike) with moving vessels (Laist et al., 2001; Douglas et al., 2008; Pace, 2011). Most reports of 

collisions involve large whales, but collisions with smaller species also occur (van Waerebeek et al., 

2007). Laist et al. (2001) provides records of the following vessel types associated with collisions with 

whales (listed in descending order): tanker/cargo vessels; whale watch vessels; passenger liners; ferries; 

naval vessels; recreational vessels; USCG vessels; fishing vessels; research vessels; dredges; and pilot 

boats. Most severe and lethal whale injuries involved large ships of lengths greater than 80 m (262 ft). 

Vessel speed was also found to be a significant factor, with most (89%) of the records involving vessels 

moving at 14 kn (26 km/hr) or greater. There are reports of collisions between moving vessels and most 

of the listed species that occur within the study area, particularly the fin whale (IWC, 2011b). Collision 

with vessels is the leading human-caused source of mortality for the endangered NARW (USDOC, 

NMFS, 2005). Their slow movements, time spent at the surface, and time spent near the coast make them 

highly vulnerable to being struck by ships. Studies suggest that NARWs do not actively move out of the 

path oncoming ships, which greatly increases their chances of collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). 

Marine mammal species of concern for possible ship strike with all vessels operating at speed include 

primarily slow-moving species (e.g., NARWs) and deep-diving species while on the surface (e.g., sperm 

whales, pygmy/dwarf sperm whales, and beaked whales). Generally, it is assumed that the probability of 

this encounter, and thus impact, is very low. However, vessel operations within areas such as the NARW

critical habitat and migration corridor during calving and nursing or migration periods may increase the 

probability of ship strike with this species. Certain cetacean species, including bottlenose dolphin and 

other dolphin species (e.g., Stenella spp.), actively approach vessels moving at speed to swim within the 

pressure wave produced by the vessel’s bow.

Under the proposed action, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for vessel 

strike avoidance similar to Joint BOEM-BSEE NTL 2012-G01 (“Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”), which incorporates NMFS “Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Measures and Reporting for Mariners” addressing protected species identification, vessel strike 

avoidance, and injured/dead protected species reporting (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012a). Guidance 

protocols are discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.1 and Appendix C. The guidance protocols also incorporate 

elements of NMFS Compliance Guide for the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 

224.105), which limits vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/h) in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs

for NARWs during migration. Vessel speed restrictions in these areas for G&G surveys are in effect 

between November 1 and April 30 in the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA and between November 15 and 

April 15 in the Southeast U.S. SMA for all vessels. The purpose of this mitigation is to reduce the 

likelihood of death and serious injury to endangered NARWs that may result from collisions with ships. 

These restrictions extend out to 37 km (23 mi) around major Atlantic ports. These regulations also 
4-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

benefit other marine mammal species. Further, 33 CFR § 164.46(a) requires that vessels be outfitted with 

an USCG “type-approved” and “properly installed” Automatic Identification System (AIS). The AIS 

provides vessel information, including the vessel's identity, type, position, course, speed, navigational 

status, and other safety-related information automatically to appropriately equipped shore stations, other 

ships, and aircraft; receives automatically such information from similarly fitted ships; monitors and 

tracks ships; and exchanges data with shore-based facilities (http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/

?pageName=AISFAQ). 

With these mitigation measures in place, survey vessels are unlikely to strike marine mammals. 

Seismic vessels, which account for most of the project-related vessel traffic associated with Alternative A

activities, survey at a speed of approximately 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). In addition, waters surrounding survey 

vessels while on survey would be monitored (during daylight hours) by PSOs for the presence of marine 

mammals. During transit to and from shore bases, survey vessels are expected to travel at greater speeds; 

however, as noted above, these vessel movements would be subject to a joint BOEM-BSEE guidance for 

vessel strike avoidance and be required to reduce speed in certain areas to comply with operational 

restrictions outlined in 50 CFR § 224.105 (Speed Restrictions to Protect North Atlantic Right Whales)

and as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.1 and Appendix C. 

In this analysis, the likelihood of a collision between a project-related vessel and a marine mammal

within the AOI is considered to be very low because of several factors: relatively low vessel speeds 

(particularly within seasonal restricted areas and inshore waterways), the presence of visual observers

and/or PSOs on board certain survey vessels, and adherence to vessel operations guidelines for avoidance 

of vessel strikes with listed species. Under these conditions, vessel collisions with marine mammals 

would be avoided and impacts would be negligible. In the unlikely event a collision did occur, its impact

would depend upon the number of individuals and the population status of the species affected. The 

impact would be most severe if the continued viability of the population was seriously threatened, 

including serious diminishment of annual rates of recruitment or survival. However, it is very unlikely 

that a collision between a survey vessel and marine mammal would occur. Interactions between marine 

mammals attracted to project-related vessel traffic are not considered to constitute a negative impact.

Aircraft Traffic and Noise

Remote sensing surveys associated with oil and gas exploration and development activities would

include aeromagnetic surveys (Chapter 3.2.2.6.5) and the installation of COST and shallow test wells 

(Chapter 3.2.2.4). BOEM anticipates that one or two aeromagnetic surveys may be conducted in the 

AOI during the time period covered by the Programmatic EIS. As discussed in detail in Chapter 3.5.1.4, 

the surveys would be conducted by fixed-wing aircraft flying at speeds of about 135 kn (250 km/hr) 

(Reeves, 2005). Most offshore aeromagnetic surveys are flown at altitudes between 61 and 152 m 

(200-500 ft). Line spacing varies depending on the objectives, but typical grids are 0.5 by 1.0 mi or 

1.0 by 1.0 mi. It is expected that a typical aeromagnetic survey may require 1-3 months to complete. In 

addition, helicopters are a potential source of aircraft noise during drilling of COST wells and shallow test 

wells. The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells 

would be drilled in the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas during the time period of the Programmatic 

EIS. It is expected that drilling activities would be supported by a helicopter making one round-trip daily 

between the drilling rig and onshore support base.

Potential IPFs to marine mammals from aircraft traffic and noise include noise and physical (visual) 

disturbance. Noises generated by project-related aircraft that are directly relevant to marine mammals 

include both airborne sounds to individual mammals resting on the sea surface and underwater sounds 

from air-to-water transmission from passing aircraft. Both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft generate 

noise from their engines, airframe, and propellers. The sound sources from both types of aircraft are 

continuous with dominant tones generally below 500 Hz (Richardson et al., 1995) and is within the within 

the auditory range of all marine mammals (Appendix H). The current acoustic threshold established by 

NMFS for continuous sounds is 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for sub-injurious behavioral modification. 

Richardson et al. (1995) reported received SPLs (in water) from aircraft flying at altitudes of 152 m 

(500 ft) were 109 dB re 1 μPa for a Bell 212 helicopter and 101 dB re 1 μPa for a small, fixed-wing 

aircraft (B-N Islander). Helicopters are about 10 dB louder than fixed-wing aircraft of similar size 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Penetration of aircraft noise into the water is greatest directly below the 

aircraft; at angles greater than 13o from the vertical, much of the sound is reflected and does not penetrate 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-71

into the water (Richardson et al., 1995). The duration of underwater sound from passing aircraft is much 

shorter in water than air; for example, a helicopter passing at an altitude of 152 m (500 ft) that is audible 

in air for 4 min may be detectable underwater for only 38 s at 3 m (10 ft) depth and for 11 s at 18 m 

(59 ft) depth (Richardson et al., 1995). Levels of noise received underwater from passing aircraft depend 

on the aircraft’s altitude, the aspect (direction and angle) of the aircraft relative to the receiver, receiver 

depth and water depth, and seafloor type (Richardson et al., 1995). Because of the relatively high 

expected airspeed (135 kn [250 km/hr]) and these physical variables, aircraft-related noise (including both 

airborne and underwater noise) is expected to be brief in duration at any receiver. 

The physical presence of low-flying aircraft can disturb marine mammals, particularly individuals 

resting on the sea surface. Observations made from low-altitude aerial surveys report behavioral 

responses of marine mammals are highly variable and range from no observable reaction to diving or 

rapid changes in swimming speed or direction (Efroymson et al., 2002; Smultea et al., 2008). Minke 

whales have responded to helicopters at an altitude of 230 m (750 ft) by changing course or slowly diving 

(Leatherwood et al., 1982). Observational data of marine mammals exposed to sound from other sources 

(i.e., non-aircraft) may also be relevant in evaluating aircraft-based noise exposure impacts. For example, 

Frankel and Clark (1998) note that humpback whales exposed to low-frequency sound may be responding 

to features of the source of the sound such as sound gradient or changes in the frequency spectrum rather 

than to the level itself.

Considering the relatively low numbers of aeromagnetic surveys and the low number of COST and 

shallow test wells associated with the proposed activity, along with the short duration of potential 

exposure of aircraft-related noise and physical disturbance to marine mammals because of survey 

airspeed, it is expected that effects are restricted to behavioral disruptions. Potential impacts from this 

activity are expected to be negligible to minor. 

Trash and Debris

Lost and discarded marine debris, particularly those items made of synthetic materials, is a major 

form of marine pollution. The types of objects most commonly encountered in offshore waters include 

plastic bags, wrappers, bottles, cups, and raw plastic pellets; synthetic rope; glass bottles; metal cans; 

lumber; and cigarette butts (Laist, 1996, 1997; Barnes et al., 2009; Gregory, 2009). Factors that account 

for recent increases in marine debris include unlawful disposal practices, proliferation of synthetic 

materials that are resistant to degradation in the marine environment, and increasing numbers of people 

using and disposing of more synthetic items. Marine debris poses two types of potentially negative 

impacts to marine biota, including marine mammals: (1) entanglement, and (2) ingestion. Records 

suggest that entanglement is a far more likely cause of mortality to marine mammals than 

ingestion-related interactions. Entanglement records for marine mammals show that entanglement is 

most common in pinnipeds, less common in mysticete cetaceans, and rare among odontocete cetaceans 

(Laist et al., 1999). Entanglement data for mysticete cetaceans may reflect a high interaction rate with 

active fishing gear rather than with marine debris. Abrasion and chafing scars from rope and line have 

been reported on numbers of photographed NARWs in the western North Atlantic. These scars were 

attributed to entanglement in fishing gear (USDOC, NMFS, 2005). Entanglement records for odontocete 

cetaceans that are not clearly related to bycatch in active fisheries are almost absent (Laist, 1996).

G&G survey operations generate trash made of paper, plastic, wood, glass, and metal. Most of this 

trash is associated with galley and offshore food service operations. The discharge of trash and debris is 

prohibited (33 CFR §§ 151.51-77) unless it is passed through a comminutor (a machine that breaks up 

solids) and can pass through a 25-mm mesh screen. All other trash and debris must be returned to shore 

for proper disposal with municipal and solid waste. Some personal items, such as hardhats and personal 

flotation devices, are occasionally accidentally lost overboard. However, USCG and USEPA regulations 

require operators to become proactive in avoiding accidental loss of solid waste items by developing 

waste management plans, posting informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using 

special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Under 

the proposed action, all authorizations for offshore G&G activities would include guidance for the 

handling and disposal of marine trash and debris, similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and 

Debris Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012).

Taking into account the USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance, it is unlikely that 

significant amounts of trash and debris from G&G activities would be released into the marine 
4-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

environment. Therefore, debris entanglement and ingestion impacts on marine mammals are expected to 

be negligible. 

4.2.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill ranging from 

1.2-7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean surface would disperse and weather. Volatile components of 

the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel used for operation of survey vessels is light and would float on 

the ocean surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel components to adhere 

to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink.

Marine mammals could be affected by accidentally spilled diesel fuel from a vessel associated with 

project activities. Effects of spilled oil on marine mammals are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1980, 

1982, 1985, 1990) and Lee and Anderson (2005), as well as within spill-specific study results 

(e.g., Exxon Valdez; Frost and Lowry, 1994; Paine et al., 1996; Hoover-Miller et al., 2001; Peterson et al., 

2003). Quantities of diesel fuel on the sea surface may affect marine mammals through various 

pathways: surface contact of the fuel with skin and other mucous membranes, inhalation of concentrated 

petroleum vapors, or ingestion of the fuel (direct ingestion or by the ingestion of oiled prey). As 

discussed in Chapter 3.5.2.1, the likelihood of a fuel spill during G&G activities is considered to be 

remote, and the potential for impacts to marine mammals would depend greatly on the size and location 

of a spill, and meteorological conditions at the time of the spill.

It is assumed that spilled fuel would rapidly spread to a layer of varying thickness and break up into 

narrow bands or windrows parallel to the wind direction. The rate at which the fuel spreads would be 

determined by the prevailing conditions such as temperature, water currents, tidal streams, and wind 

speeds. Lighter, volatile components of the fuel would evaporate to the atmosphere almost completely in 

a few days. Evaporation rate may increase as the oil spreads because of the increased surface area of the 

slick. Rougher seas, high wind speeds, and high temperatures also tend to increase the rate of evaporation 

and the proportion of oil lost by this process (American Petroleum Institute, 1999; USDOC, NOAA, 

2006).

An accidental diesel fuel spill adjacent to or within the NARW critical habitat during the winter 

calving period may result in the direct contact of the spilled fuel with both adult and newly born whales. 

It is presumed that the fuel would disperse to a very light sheen and would weather rapidly. Impacts from 

this event are not likely to seriously injure individual whales and thus are expected to be minor. Fuel 

spills in other areas of the AOI are expected to result in negligible to minor impacts to marine mammals. 

4.2.2.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario (Chapter 3.6) includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the 

AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; 

(4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range 

complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation, including research 

vessels; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative 

impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. 

The IPFs for these cumulative activities that may affect marine mammals include (1) increased 

anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater noise from sonars, explosives, dredges, vessel 

traffic, and other active sound sources; (2) discharges of drilling fluid, produced water, and other effluents 

from drilling rigs; (3) the physical presence of offshore structures; (4) accidental releases of trash and 

debris; (5) vessel collisions; (6) depletion of prey species from fishing pressure; (7) interactive effects of 

climate change, including impacts on preferred habitats and food sources; and (8) a risk of a crude oil 

spill from a well blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other hazardous materials from accidents

(smaller accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). 

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, six sources of potential impacts 

to marine mammals have been identified in association with proposed G&G activities, including 

(1) underwater noise; (2) vessel and equipment noise; (3) vessel traffic and collisions; (4) aircraft traffic

and noise; (5) trash and debris; and (6) accidental fuel spills. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-73

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative A would result in negligible or minor to moderate impacts to marine mammals. 

The determination of noise-related impacts to marine mammals was made with the assumption that 

Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol and associated mitigation measures would help prevent the lethal take of 

any marine mammal through noise exposure. The determination of vessel traffic impacts was based on 

the very low likelihood of vessel strikes on marine mammals. The following analysis considers whether 

those program-related incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically with other sources 

unrelated to the oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals programs from the cumulative 

impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact. 

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

For the purposes of this analysis, and in consideration of the documented increases in marine 

transportation volumes along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, it is assumed that underwater noise from vessel 

traffic and other anthropogenic sources within the AOI is increasing (Jensen et al., 2009). Most ambient 

underwater noise is broadband. Vessel traffic is recognized as a major, anthropogenic contributor to 

background ocean noise, primarily in the 5-500 Hz frequency band (NRC, 2003a), while naturally 

occurring phenomena such as spray and bubbles from breaking waves is a major contributor to ambient 

noise, primarily in the 500-100,000 Hz range. Sound from rain typically is between 1 and 3 kHz 

underwater and wind produces frequencies between 100 Hz and 30 kHz, while wave-generated sound is

approximately 1-20 Hz (Simmonds et al., 2003).

It is recognized that low-frequency sound, including airgun and ship noise, may travel large distances

(Nieurkick et al., 2004, Nieurkick et al., 2012). Guerra et al. (2011) studied airguns and reverberation in 

the Arctic. They found that it was highly dependent on the location, particularly depth and bottom 

composition. At all five sites evaluated, reverberation could be detected between 62 and 128 km (38.5 

and 79.5 mi) from studied sound sources. Hatch et al. (2012), assessing the effects of ship noise on the 

NARW within and surrounding waters of Stellwagen Bank NMS, found that the NARW’s acoustic 

habitat has already seen a loss of approximately 60 percent of their historical communication space; 

authors further noted that this loss of communication space has increased to an average of approximately 

63 percent due to shipping traffic. Hatch et al. (2012) discussed shipping noise as a chronic acoustic 

exposure that may have a spatially extensive impact. However, the correlation between a reduced 

communication space and the effects of effective or efficient choices for feeding, mating, and movement 

is unknown (Hatch et al., 2008). It is possible that shipping noise could subsequently lead to chronic 

elevations of stress due to repeated exposures which may results in a loss of fitness (Rolland et al., 2012).

Most impacts associated with the cumulative program-related and non-program-related activities 

scenario, such as vessel and aircraft noise, fluid discharges, the accidental release of trash and debris, and 

vessel collisions (strikes) are predicted to fall predominantly within the negligible impacts category. 

Moderate noise impacts might be realized in association with seismic airgun surveys and specific military 

activities (e.g., sonars and explosives). These impacts are expected to be spatially localized and shortterm in duration. Implementation of mitigation measures such as time area closures, monitoring, and

clearance of acoustic exclusion zones are expected to minimize potential noise impacts from these active 

acoustic sources. These acoustic exclusion zone guidelines are specific to each activity (e.g., seismic 

airgun surveys, explosive/ordnance testing, or military sonar testing) and are required by regulatory 

agencies (NMFS and FWS) prior to each activity. For comparative purposes, results of the acoustic 

impacts analysis expected from the proposed U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet operations (including OPAREAS 

within the AOI) were presented separately for training and testing operations (USDON, 2012). Both 

training and testing activities under the Navy No Action Alternative included activities that produce inwater noise from the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources and were expected to produce both 

Level A and Level B impacts in the absence of mitigation measures. Training activities are concentrated 

in the VACAPES, Cherry Point, and Jacksonville (JAX) Range Complexes, while testing activities are 

prevalent in the VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes. For training activities, the use of sonar and other 

active acoustic sources as described in the No Action Alternative may expose: 
4-74 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

1. marine mammals up to 1,056,582 times annually to sound levels that would be 

considered Level B harassment; 

2. marine mammals up to 68 times annually to sound levels that would be considered 

Level A harassment; and

3. up to 10 beaked whales annually to sound levels that may elicit stranding and 

subsequent serious injury or mortality.

For testing activities, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources as described in the No Action 

Alternative may expose marine mammals: 

1. up to 747,620 times annually to sound levels that would be considered Level B 

harassment; 

2. up to 163 times to sound levels that would be considered Level A harassment; 

3. up to 146,016 times over a 5-year period associated with unmanned underwater 

vehicle demonstrations to sound levels that would be considered Level B harassment; 

and

4. up to 253 times over a 5-year period associated with unmanned underwater vehicle 

demonstrations to sound levels that would be considered Level A harassment. 

By comparison, acoustic impacts are calculated from both seismic and non-airgun surveys associated 

with proposed G&G-related activities. Among the listed species, Level A take (i.e., onset of TTS) 

estimated using the 180-dB criterion would be highest (in decreasing order and without mitigation) for 

sperm, humpback, fin, blue, and sei whales, although individual annual takes would generally be <9 

individuals except for sperm and humpback whales. North Atlantic right whale take estimates ranged 

from 1 to 2 individuals per year. Level B take estimates suggest large numbers of cetaceans may 

experience non-injurious impacts from seismic airgun surveys. For example, Level B take of bottlenose 

dolphins are estimated at levels between 128,771 individuals (during 2015) to over one million 

individuals (during 2014). Given the estimated stock size of these populations and frequency of surveys 

outlined in Alternative A, it is likely that individual animals would experience multiple exposures over 

the course of the study period. Noise from the proposed action would elicit behavioral alterations such as 

avoidance or temporary displacement from areas of ensonification. Situations of entrapping animals 

between shore and an active sound source could further exacerbate behavioral reactions. Noise from nonairgun HRG surveys may impact individual marine mammals within the AOI, primarily because of the 

location of surveys in water depths typically <40 m (131 ft) in comparison with the high densities of 

delphinids in nearshore waters, and the overlap in source frequencies and hearing thresholds. In the nonairgun HRG survey analysis, no lethal impacts were predicted and Level A incidental take estimates of 

most species were less than one individual per year.

Table 4-15 provides a tabular comparison of take estimates, comparing acoustic-related take 

associated with Navy training and testing operations with G&G-related activities under conditions where 

no mitigation measures have been applied. Results of the take calculations indicate that (1) G&G 

activities associated with airgun surveys have a greater estimated Level A take than Navy AFTT 

operations, (2) G&G activities associated with non-airgun (HRG) surveys have a lower estimated Level A 

take than Navy AFTT operations, and (3) Level B G&G seismic airgun take numbers are slightly higher 

than those estimated for Navy AFTT operations.

Again, and as described throughout the marine mammal impact analysis section, the marine mammal 

take estimates are estimates of potential take. They do not represent expected levels of actual take given 

they are based on the upper limits of highly conservative models, and they do not consider the effect of 

most mitigation in reducing take with the exception of the time-area closure described in Alternative A. 

By setting this upper limit, the analysis can then consider which mitigations can be applied to reduce take, 

both programmatically (i.e., at this Programmatic EIS level) or project-specifically (i.e., through 

site/permit-specific analyses).

Oil and gas G&G airgun surveys have not been conducted in the AOI in decades. Active acoustic 

sound sources, including both airguns and electromechanical sources, and vessel and equipment noise

from the proposed action would contribute to ambient noise levels within the AOI. Noise from G&G 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-75

operations would be survey- or activity-based and so would occur on a transient and intermittent basis 

over the period of interest. Impacts to marine mammals from underwater noise produced from sound 

sources associated with proposed G&G activities would be moderate (Chapter 4.2.2.2). 

The AFTT sound source types and activities are summarized in Chapter 3.6.7. The airgun surveys 

considered under the BOEM Programmatic EIS represent a class of noise that are similar in ways to 

certain AFTT sound sources, such as explosive testing and exercises involving the firing and detonation 

of live ordnance, and different in others, such as military sonar (e.g., as waveforms, pulse duration, 

operational frequency, and sound energy direction). However, the impacts caused by the sound sources to 

marine mammals are similar.

Overall, it is assumed that there would be substantial yet localized increases in ambient noise levels 

within specific portions of the AOI during G&G operations (particularly during seismic airgun surveys). 

Considering the inclusion of mitigation measures under Alternative A, including seasonal time-area 

closures to protect NARWs within their designated critical habitat and select areas within their migration 

route and calving and nursery grounds (U.S. SMAs), as well as the Survey Protocols (including visual 

monitoring for both seismic airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys, and acoustic sound source 

ramp-up procedures for all surveys using airguns), it is anticipated that most Level A take impacts to 

marine mammals within the AOI would be avoided. No mortalities of either listed or nonlisted species 

were predicted from the analysis, although mitigations cannot be said to always remain 100 percent

effective. Level B takes, constituting behavioral responses to noise exposure, would be reduced but not 

eliminated as a result of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol and associated mitigation measures.

 The cumulative effects analysis in the AFTT represents a recent and comprehensive analysis for 

marine mammals in the AOI. Its cumulative analysis considered the same suite of noise-producing 

activities and determined them to have a negligible impact on marine mammals (Chapter 3.6.7). The 

BOEM Programmatic EIS found moderate impacts to marine mammals from G&G activities (see 

Chapter 4.2.2.2). However, impacts are expected to be spatially localized and short-term in duration. 

Implementation of mitigation measures such as time area closures, monitoring, and clearance of acoustic 

exclusion zones are expected to minimize potential noise impacts from these active acoustic sources. 

Therefore, the impacts associated with Alternative A would result in a minor incremental increase in 

underwater noise and a minor increase to impacts to marine mammals under the cumulative scenario.

Vessel Traffic

For the purposes of this analysis, it is expected that recent trends showing increases in marine 

transportation and shipping levels at U.S. east coast ports will continue and that overall vessel traffic

within the AOI will increase during the period of interest (Ward-Geiger et al., 2005). Increases in vessel 

traffic increase the likelihood of vessel-marine mammal interactions, including vessel strikes.

Vessel traffic associated with G&G operations would involve relatively small numbers of 

survey-related vessels operating within offshore waters on a transient and intermittent basis over the 

period of interest (Table 3-9). From the analysis of routine operations associated with the proposed 

action, it was concluded that the probability for G&G survey or support vessel collisions with most 

marine mammal species is unlikely, considering the relatively slow speeds of survey vessels and the 

speed and agility of most marine mammal species, particularly within an open ocean environment. 

However, certain slow-moving species such as NARWs or deep-diving species that may spend periods of 

time resting on the sea surface may be at somewhat greater risk for collisions with moving vessels.

It is expected that the likelihood of a collision between a project-related vessel and a marine mammal

within the AOI is very low, considering the low number of G&G survey vessels (relative to overall vessel 

traffic) and their relatively low speed of travel, the presence of visual observers and/or PSOs on board 

certain survey vessels, and adherence to vessel operations guidelines for avoidance of vessel strikes with 

listed species. Impacts to marine mammals from vessel traffic and collision were expected to be 

negligible. From this analysis, it is expected that vessel traffic associated with the proposed action would 

result in a minor incremental increase in the potential for vessel collisions with marine mammals under 

the cumulative scenario.
4-76 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Aircraft Traffic and Noise

Remote sensing surveys associated with oil and gas exploration and development activities would

include an unspecified number of aeromagnetic surveys, each of which is conducted using fixed-wing 

aircraft flying at an altitude between 61-152 m (200-500 ft) and at speeds of about 135 kn (250 km/hr). 

Potential IPFs to marine mammals from aeromagnetic survey aircraft include noise and physical (visual) 

disturbance. Impacts to marine mammals from aircraft traffic and noise were expected to range from 

negligible to minor. It is expected that these surveys would add a negligible amount of aircraft flight 

activity to the overall volume of aircraft traffic within the AOI. Because of the relatively low number of 

surveys within the AOI and the high relative speed of the aircraft, survey aircraft-related noise (including 

both airborne and underwater noise) is expected to be limited to few geographic areas and brief in 

duration. It is expected that aircraft traffic associated with the proposed action would result in a 

negligible increase in potential impacts to marine mammals under the cumulative scenario.

Trash and Debris

The release of trash and debris into offshore waters potentially may occur from any of the activities 

identified in the cumulative activities scenario. Vessel operators, crew, and personnel present on offshore 

structures, are required to comply with the requirements of Federal regulations, which incorporate the 

requirements of MARPOL 73/78, including Annex V. In addition, all authorizations for shipboard 

surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. The guidance would be similar to BSEE’s

NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012). 

Compliance with Federal regulations, which include MARPOL requirements and BSEE guidance, 

ensures that the volume of trash and debris that may be intentionally dumped offshore is very limited. 

Impacts to marine mammals from cumulative activities within the AOI are expected to be negligible. 

The G&G vessel operations would operate under Federal regulations, which incorporate MARPOL 

and Annex V trash and debris disposal restrictions. The G&G activities conducted under the proposed 

action would potentially add a very small amount of accidentally released trash and debris into offshore 

waters. Therefore, the accidental release of trash or debris during G&G activities would result in a minor 

incremental increase in ambient levels of trash and debris within the AOI. Only minor incremental 

increases in impacts to marine mammals are expected from the accidental release of trash and debris 

under the cumulative scenario.

Accidental Fuel Spills 

The cumulative scenario considers a significant volume of overall vessel traffic, particularly around 

ports along the U.S. eastern seaboard. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision or 

grounding with a subsequent loss of fuel into offshore or nearshore waters. The relative contribution 

from an accidental fuel spill from a vessel collision under the proposed action to the cumulative scenario 

is expected to be minor. 

The likelihood of a diesel fuel spill during G&G activities is considered to be remote and the 

associated impacts to marine mammals are expected to range from negligible to minor, depending on a 

series of factors, including whether spilled diesel fuel directly contacts individual animals, the quantity of 

fuel encountered, the degree of weathering to which the fuel has been exposed, and duration of contact. It 

is reasonable to assume that the potential for fuel spills from vessels involved in the cumulative activities 

scenario would be considerably higher than that expected from vessels associated with activities under the 

proposed action because of the relative magnitude of overall vessel activity in the AOI when compared to 

G&G activities. Therefore, the incremental increase in potential for accidental fuel spills arising from 

vessel collision during G&G activities would be expected to be extremely small. Based on the 

low-probability of a G&G activity-related fuel spill during the period of interest, the incremental increase 

in diesel spill-related impacts to marine mammals under the cumulative scenario is expected to be minor. 

Chapter 3.6.1 outlines the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-77

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts on marine mammals would vary, depending on factors such as 

geographic location (including distance from shore), the time of year, and the size of the spill. It is 

expected that spill plans would be developed and approved during the applicable lease sale and spill 

response infrastructure would be in place prior to drilling activities.

Impacts from an accidental spill within the AOI from project-related drilling activities are expected to 

be negligible if no animals were contacted by the spilled oil. If contact with spilled oil resulted in the loss 

of life or life-threatening injury to an individual or group(s) of marine mammals, the impact would be 

moderate. A major impact would occur if the level of mortality or debilitating injuries was in 

sufficiently high numbers that the continued viability of the population was seriously threatened. Before 

a proposed exploration well could be drilled in the Atlantic OCS, potential impacts would be analyzed in 

a lease sale EIS, and a site-specific EA would be prepared. Within the site-specific EA, all potential 

impacts from a crude oil spill released from an accidental well blowout would be examined, including an 

analysis of site-specific information regarding listed and nonlisted marine mammal species distributions 

and relative densities, preferred habitats or critical habitats, and temporal concerns such as feeding and/or 

calving periods, as well as mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts to marine mammals from 

routine drilling activities and potential accidental crude oil spills. Considering the low number of 

potential drilling activities presented in the proposed action scenario, the remote probability of an 

accidental spill, and environmental protections analyzed in the EIS and EA process and enforced through 

permits, including impact avoidance and mitigation measures, the incremental increase in impacts to 

marine mammals in the cumulative scenario from a well blowout arising from exploratory drilling 

operations associated with the proposed action would be negligible. 

4.2.3. Sea Turtles

4.2.3.1. Description of the Affected Environment

Five sea turtle species occur in the AOI (Table 4-16): loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green 

turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys 

kempii), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The leatherback is classified under Family 

Dermochelyidae, whereas the other four are in Family Cheloniidae. Loggerhead, leatherback, and green 

turtles are more commonly found within the AOI at certain periods (nesting season) and life stages. 

Kemp’s ridley and particularly hawksbill turtles are less common within the AOI. Green, leatherback, 

and loggerhead turtles use coastal beaches within the AOI as primary nesting sites, with the main nesting 

beaches in southeast Florida. However, loggerhead turtles also nest along the southeast coast as far north 

as Virginia.

All sea turtles are protected under the ESA. Because sea turtles use terrestrial and marine 

environments at different life stages, FWS and NMFS share jurisdiction over sea turtles under the ESA. 

The FWS has jurisdiction over nesting beaches, and NMFS has jurisdiction in the marine environment. 

The hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, and leatherback turtles are listed under the ESA as endangered. The green 

turtle is listed as threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is endangered (USDOC, 

NMFS, 2011g). The Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead turtle is currently classified as 

threatened (Federal Register, 2011e; USDOC, NMFS, 2011h). 

The FWS and NMFS have designated critical habitat for the green, hawksbill, and leatherback turtles 

(Table 4-16), but there is no critical habitat within or adjacent to the AOI. On February 17, 2010, FWS 

and NMFS were jointly petitioned to designate critical habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtles for nesting 

beaches along the Texas coast and marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean (WildEarth 

Guardians, 2010). On March 25, 2013, the FWS proposed designating critical habitat for nesting beaches 

for the Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerhead turtles (Federal Register, 2013e) that includes coastal areas 

of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida as well as areas in the Gulf of 

Mexico. On July 18, 2013, NOAA proposed critical habitat for the same Northwest Atlantic DPS of 

loggerheads including areas offshore of these same locations (Federal Register, 2013f). The FWS and 

NMFS are currently reviewing the petition.
4-78 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Important marine habitats for sea turtles in and near the AOI include nesting beaches, estuaries and 

embayments, nearshore hard substrate areas, and the Gulf Stream. Within the AOI, sea turtle nesting 

occurs on sandy beaches from Virginia to Florida. The distribution and densities of sea turtle nests 

reported from individual counties within the AOI during the 2010 nesting season are shown in 

Figure 4-14. Most sea turtle species move geographically, either seasonally or between nesting activities. 

Some species may move seasonally into foraging habitats through migration corridors and to nesting 

beaches (Mansfield et al., 2009; Hawkes et al., 2011). The size of “resident” foraging habitats appears to 

vary with species and location. Studies suggest that resident foraging area size in the western North 

Atlantic decreases in a north-to-south gradient, possibly because of available food resources and the width 

of the continental shelf, which also decreases in a north-to-south gradient (Griffin, 2002).

Nesting beaches within the AOI are subject to periodic impacts from tropical cyclones (including 

hurricanes and tropical storms). Studies suggest that tropical cyclones are a significant factor in observed 

sea turtle nesting declines (van Houtan and Bass, 2007). It is anticipated that the frequency of these storm 

events is likely to increase with changes in global climate (Webster et al., 2005; Pike and Stiner, 2007). 

Generally, storm-induced impacts to nesting beaches include beach flooding and the displacement of 

large volumes of sand (Pike and Stiner, 2007). Sea turtle eggs lose and gain water quickly depending on 

nest conditions, and nests exposed to seawater may be lost because of inhibited oxygen exchange or rapid 

water loss to saline seawater (Packard, 1999). Displacement of sand during storm events may expose and 

destroy established nests or may alter beach morphology to where is it not suitable for nesting habitat. 

Factors that may affect nesting success during storm seasons include the distance of the nest from shore 

and/or the nest depth, and nesting season.

Embayments such as Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay provide important foraging and 

developmental habitat for sea turtles (Musick, 1988; Coles, 1999; Spotila et al., 2000). Exposed hard 

substrate in shallow nearshore areas off eastern Florida provides important foraging and developmental 

habitats for cheloniid sea turtles, particularly juveniles and subadults (CSA International, Inc., 2009). The 

Gulf Stream is a key oceanographic feature that is utilized by sea turtles for various purposes, such as 

migration (Hoffman and Fritts, 1982). Sargassum mats that form in convergence zones associated with 

the Gulf Stream provide shelter and foraging habitat for hatchling and post-hatchling sea turtles (Carr and 

Meylan, 1980; SAFMC, 2002).

4.2.3.1.1. Loggerhead Turtle

Range and Spatial Distribution

Loggerhead turtles are likely to be the most common sea turtle species in the AOI. The loggerhead is 

a large cheloniid sea turtle, with adults reaching up to 1.1 m (3.5 ft) in carapace length and 181 kg 

(400 lb) in mass. It is a circumglobal species that is found from tropical to temperate regions. In the 

Atlantic Ocean, the loggerhead turtle is reported from Newfoundland, the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of 

Mexico, and along the east coast of the U.S. Loggerhead turtles, like other sea turtles, are highly 

migratory, making various seasonal and annual migrations (Godley et al., 2003). Moncada et al. (2010) 

reported that it is common for loggerhead turtles to make extended transoceanic journeys and then later 

return to specific nesting beaches.

Overall, the population structure of the loggerhead turtle is complex and challenging to evaluate 

(Bolten and Witherington, 2003). According to the Loggerhead Biological Review Team, there are nine 

significant populations of loggerhead turtles termed distinct population segments (DPSs) (Conant et al., 

2009). The Northwest Atlantic Ocean population segment occurs in an area bounded by 60o N latitude to 

the north and the equator to the south, with 40o W longitude as the eastern boundary. The NMFS has also 

identified four recovery units with the Northwest Atlantic DPS (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 

2008) (Figure 4-15). Two of these recovery units are within the AOI: the Northern Recovery Unit 

(NRU), extending from the Florida-Georgia border through southern Virginia (the northern extent of the 

nesting range), and the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU), extending south from the 

Florida-Georgia border through Pinellas County on the west coast of Florida, excluding the islands west 

of Key West, Florida. 

Roughly one-third of NRU turtles are distributed on the wide continental shelf off South Carolina and 

Georgia where they occupy year-round home ranges of approximately 200-400 km2

 (77-154 mi2). The 

remaining two-thirds of the NRU occupies a seasonal range that extends as far north and east as the 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-79

continental shelf edge off New Jersey during summer months and retracts southwards to a narrow area of 

continental shelf off North Carolina and South Carolina during winter (Hawkes et al., 2011). Inner shelf 

waters off Virginia and North Carolina provide important seasonal habitat for this species, especially 

waters near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, which act as a seasonal “migratory bottleneck” (Mansfield et 

al., 2009). Turtles within the much larger PFRU travel outside of western Atlantic waters into the Gulf of 

Mexico and into waters outside of the U.S. EEZ (e.g., Mexico and Cuba) (Hawkes et al., 2011). Based on 

nesting information, loggerhead turtle nests are primarily located in four of the seven states in the AOI: 

Florida (91%), South Carolina (6.5%), Georgia (1.5%), and North Carolina (1%). The northern 

subpopulation is the second largest in the U.S., and South Carolina represents about 65 percent of those 

nests (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources [SCDNR], 2005a).

Population Status

Estimating sea turtle populations is challenging given the lack of information for many of the 

life-history parameters that are needed to model populations, e.g., hatchling survival rates and adult 

natural and anthropogenic mortality rates. In general, the status of the population is often estimated based 

on the number of annual nests at different locations within a region, anthropogenic threats, and mortality 

estimates (Conant et al., 2009); models require using various assumptions. Based on available data for 

the Atlantic OCS region (Florida Bay to New York), various estimates have been calculated. Results for 

nine specific areas within the Northwest Atlantic (in-water assessment) showed that there were 

five time-series without a distinct population trend (i.e., increasing or decreasing), two with an increasing 

trend, and three with a decreasing trend (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008).

The southeast U.S. coast is among the most important areas in the world for loggerhead nesting. The 

east Florida coast is the most important area (Figure 4-16). The USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS 

(2008) report that about 80 percent of loggerhead nesting in this region occurs in six Florida counties: 

Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward. Brevard County is located within 

the AOI, while Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties are south of the AOI. 

Within this region there is a 20-mi (32.2-km) section of coastline from Melbourne Beach to Wabasso 

Beach that comprises the Archie Carr NWR, which has been identified as the most important nesting area 

for loggerhead turtles in the western hemisphere (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008); this stretch 

of coastline borders the AOI (Figure 4-14). The Archie Carr NWR is critical to the recovery and survival 

of loggerhead turtles; it has been estimated that 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the U.S. occurs in 

the Archie Carr NWR. Nesting densities have been estimated at 625 nests per km (1,000 nests per mile) 

within the Archie Carr NWR. Other important nesting locations occur in South Carolina (6.5%), Georgia 

(1.5%), North Carolina (1%), and Virginia (<1%), but not at the same magnitude as in Florida (USDOC, 

NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008).

Overall, the total number of nests per year in the U.S. over the last decade has been estimated at 

between 47,000 and 90,000 (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). The current recovery plan 

reported that the number of nests in the NRU averaged 5,215 annually during 1989 through 2008, and the 

nesting trend declined 1.3 percent. In the PFRU, the number of nests averaged 64,513 annually during 

1989 through 2007, and the nesting trend declined 1.6 percent. Similar to most sea turtle populations, the 

loggerhead turtle is severely depleted; however, the population is probably the most stable of any sea 

turtle. To date, projections indicated that the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead turtle population was slightly 

declining but expected to recover in the next 50-150 years (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). 

The SCDNR (2005a) recently reported that juvenile loggerheads were more abundant now in South 

Carolina coastal waters than they were in the 1970’s. Most of the nests in South Carolina were reported 

near Georgetown (44.5%), Charleston (26.4%), and Beaufort (21.9%). Even so, the population is still at 

risk of extinction given the current continuing threats (Conant et al., 2009).

Conservation and Management 

The conservation and recovery of the loggerhead turtle is administered through various domestic 

regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms such as implementing and meeting specific recovery plan 

objectives, habitat protection efforts, protecting nesting females, and funding research. Other 

conservation measures imposed by NMFS include restrictions on commercial fishery activities (requiring 

circle hooks in the pelagic longline fishery and turtle excluder devices [TEDs] in trawls) to prevent 
4-80 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

serious injury and mortality to sea turtles and endorsing several international agreements such as 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Moreover, 

NMFS has developed a Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Fisheries, which focuses on specific commercial fishing gear-related criteria.

On March 25, 2013, the FWS proposed designating critical habitat for nesting beaches for the 

Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerhead turtles (Federal Register, 2013e). These include coastal areas of 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida as well as areas in the Gulf of 

Mexico. On July 18, 2013, NOAA proposed critical habitats for the same Northwest Atlantic DPS of 

loggerhead, including areas offshore of these same locations (Federal Register, 2013f). The FWS and 

NMFS are currently reviewing the petition. Threats to the loggerhead population are similar to those for 

other sea turtles and include numerous anthropogenic threats, including but not limited to commercial 

fisheries, habitat loss (nesting beaches), climate change (e.g., sea level rise, shifts in prey availability), 

pollution, boat strikes, and disease (Conant et al., 2009; Hawkes et al., 2009; Witt et al., 2010a). 

Ecology and Life History 

Loggerhead turtles use three different types of marine habitats throughout their life: terrestrial 

(beaches), neritic (nearshore waters), and oceanic (open ocean) (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 

2008). Most of our knowledge on loggerhead turtle biology is inferred from nesting and when they are 

found in coastal and nearshore waters. Overall, there is some information about various aspects of turtle 

biology such as diet, morphology, genetics, and reproduction. Loggerhead turtles are carnivores, feeding 

primarily on mollusks and crustaceans (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). Loggerhead turtle 

nesting is from April to September, with peak nesting occurring in June and July (Weishampel et al., 

2006); females nest every 2.5-3.7 years. Age at sexual maturity is late in life at around 35 years of age; 

average clutch size is between 100 and 126 eggs, and incubation is between 42 and 75 days. The mean 

number of clutches per laying female is 3-5.5 per breeding season, with internesting intervals ranging 

from 12 to 15 days (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). The life span of the loggerhead turtle is 

57 years or more.

Immediately after loggerhead turtle hatchlings emerge from the nest, they actively swim offshore into 

oceanic areas of local convergence zones and major gyre systems, often characterized by accumulations 

of floating Sargassum. The duration of this oceanic post-hatchling-juvenile stage is variable but generally 

ranges between 7 and 12 years (Bolten and Witherington, 2003). Afterward, oceanic juveniles actively 

migrate to nearshore (neritic) developmental habitats. Within the western North Atlantic, including the 

AOI, some neritic juveniles make seasonal foraging migrations into temperate latitudes as far north as 

New York. Most juveniles are south of Cape Hatteras, Florida, by January (Musick and Limpus, 1997). 

Neritic juvenile loggerhead turtles are likely to occupy shallow water developmental habitats in nearshore 

areas of the AOI.

Information about daily movement and dive behaviors of loggerheads in the open ocean is limited, 

but new technology has allowed researchers to recently study this type of behavior in the turtles’ natural 

environment (Sobin, 2008). In shallow environments, loggerhead turtles have been observed diving and 

feeding, and their behaviors have been evaluated. Houghton et al. (2000) recorded observations of 

loggerhead turtles around the Greek Island of Kefalonia and discovered that these individuals made 

frequent shorter-duration dives than previously reported in the literature. On average, four loggerhead 

turtles made 96 dives over 29 days, with dive durations ranging from 1 to 5 min. Off Hawaii, four turtles 

(two loggerhead turtles and two olive ridley turtles) were monitored to evaluate their dive depth 

distributions to understand how mitigation measures could be implemented for longline fisheries. Based

on the research, Polovina et al. (2003) found that there were diurnal and species differences in dive 

profiles. Overall, the researchers found that all the turtles spent more time at the surface and dove deeper 

during the day than at night. Most (70%) of the dives were no deeper than 5 m (16.4 ft), and the deepest 

dive recorded for one of the loggerhead turtles was 178 m (584 ft); loggerheads generally dive at depths 

less than 100 m (328 ft). Loggerhead diving behavior has also been investigated off Japan by Hatase 

et al. (2007), who found that diving behavior is somewhat size-dependent. In southwest Florida, Sobin 

(2008) reported that loggerhead turtles spent more time near the surface in the morning (08:00-12:00 h) 

than in the evening, which was different than previous studies.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-81

4.2.3.1.2. Green Turtle

Range and Spatial Distribution

The green turtle is the largest cheloniid sea turtle; adults can reach 0.91 m (3 ft) in carapace length 

and range between 136 and 159 kg (300 and 350 lb) in mass. The green turtle is a circumglobal species 

found in the Mediterranean Sea and the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans (USDOC, NMFS and 

USDOI, FWS, 1991, 2007a). The green turtle can be found in tropical and subtropical waters between 

30° N and 30° S latitude, and, to a lesser extent, in temperate waters (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 

2007a). Satellite tagging data indicate that, similar to other sea turtles, green turtles display highly 

migratory behavior, making vast seasonal coastal and annual transoceanic migrations (Godley et al., 

2003, 2008, 2010). In the western North Atlantic, green turtles can be found on various coastal beaches 

during the nesting season and at other times feeding or swimming along nearshore or offshore waters 

from Florida to Massachusetts (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007a). Green turtles are vulnerable 

to cold temperatures, so in many locations they are found only seasonally within the AOI (Foley et al., 

2007). Based on satellite tagging research by Hart and Fujisaki (2010), green turtles display daily and 

seasonal movement patterns that are associated with foraging strategies. The researchers indicated that 

locations with optimal habitats (e.g., sources of marine algae) are likely locations where small juvenile 

green turtles may be found. Based on this study, it is probable that juvenile green turtles may be found in 

various shallow-water inshore areas in the AOI where macroalgae (seagrass) is reported. In fact, 

McClellan and Read (2009) documented the seasonal habitat-use patterns of juvenile green turtles in the 

estuaries (i.e., salt marshes, tidal creeks, and marsh islands) of North Carolina (Pamlico Sound, Cape 

Hatteras region). Green turtles are also reported to use not only the coastal waters of North Carolina as 

summer foraging habitat, but the waters of Virginia as well (Mansfield et al., 2009). Further south, green 

turtles have been reported to use the Indian River Lagoon (Florida) and areas south of the AOI (Florida 

Bay and the Florida Keys) as feeding areas. Green turtles, however, appear to occupy smaller home 

ranges than loggerhead turtles (Seminoff et al., 2002; Makowski et al., 2006; Broderick et al., 2007). 

Important nesting areas for green turtles include Florida beaches within Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, 

Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties. Most green turtles nest in Brevard County (USDOC, NMFS

and USDOI, FWS, 2007a). Except for the beaches of Brevard County, the primary green turtle nesting 

sites are south of the AOI.

Population Status

The green turtle population is considered severely depleted in comparison to its estimated historical 

levels (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007a). Currently, there is no reliable green turtle population 

estimate, but inferences have been attempted using age-based survivability models and nesting data 

(Bjorndal et al., 2003). Nesting data indicate that between 200 and 1,100 females nest annually on 

continental U.S. beaches (within the AOI). The recent 5-year status review (USDOC, NMFS and 

USDOI, FWS, 2007a) reported that the total mean annual green turtle nesting abundance was around 

5,600 nests (Florida east coast) during 2000 through 2006, and the number of nests appears to be 

increasing. Overall, the number of green turtle nests in Florida has increased over the last 18 years 

(USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007a). In addition, the numbers of immature green turtles 

incidentally captured at the St. Lucie power plant (St. Lucie County, Florida, south of the AOI) has also 

increased during the past 26 years, which could indicate the population is improving (Florida Power and 

Light Company and Quantum Resources, Inc., 2005). It is difficult to evaluate how common or rare 

green turtle occurrence is in comparison to the other sea turtles (excluding hawksbill and Kemp’s ridley) 

found within the AOI, but in terms of the number of nests surveyed in Florida in 2010, green turtles 

ranked second (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2011).

Conservation and Management 

The green turtle is protected and managed by NMFS and FWS. Under the leadership of these Federal 

agencies, various conservation and recovery strategies have been implemented since green turtles were 

listed under the protection of the ESA. Some of these management measures include international and 

domestic environmental policies, which include numerous laws, rules, and regulations. In 1998, the 
4-82 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

agencies jointly designated critical habitat for the green turtle as the waters of Culebra Island, Puerto 

Rico, and its outlying keys (Federal Register, 1998a). Under the designation process, NMFS identified 

critical habitat for green turtles as specific geographical areas that have those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of the green turtle that may require special management 

considerations. Besides designating critical habitat, other conservation measures include establishing

various conservation programs under the green turtle recovery plan and implementing a variety of 

restrictions on commercial fishery activities (e.g., requiring the use of circle hooks in pelagic longline 

fisheries and TEDs in trawls) to prevent serious injury and mortality to sea turtles; NMFS has also 

developed a Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery for Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fisheries 

(gear-based approach). Moreover, there are also various other types of restrictions to protect sea turtles 

such as beach lighting restrictions during the sea turtle nesting season, which is generally from late spring 

to late summer, and offshore hopper dredging restrictions. Besides commercial fishery interactions, green 

turtles have various other anthropogenic threats, such as habitat loss (i.e., beach nourishment), global 

climatic changes (sea level rise), and fibropapillomatosis (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007a). 

Given these inadvertent impacts, there are numerous global research priorities that focus on understanding 

these threats and how to reduce their negative impacts to sea turtle populations (Hamann et al., 2010).

Ecology and Life History 

Hatchling green turtles swim offshore to areas of convergence zones characterized with driftlines and 

patches of Sargassum. It is interesting to note that experiments with post-hatchling green turtles in the 

laboratory, along with their strong counter-coloration, suggest that they are more open-water animals than 

loggerhead or hawksbill turtles and so may avoid floatlines of Sargassum (Musick and Limpus, 1997). 

Data also suggest that recruitment of green turtles into neritic developmental habitats occurs at smaller 

body sizes (30-40 cm [12-16 in]) than for loggerhead turtles (Bjorndal and Bolten, 1988). Neritic 

developmental habitats in the western North Atlantic range from Long Island Sound to south Florida and 

the tropics. These habitats include shallow nearshore hard substrate, and embayments and other inshore 

habitats (e.g., Indian River Lagoon [Florida]). Juvenile green turtles occupying developmental habitats 

north of Florida must migrate south in autumn (Musick and Limpus, 1997). Therefore, neritic juvenile 

green turtles may occur within nearshore and inshore habitats throughout the AOI.

Green turtle distribution and diet is well documented. The USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS

(2007a) status review highlights that the Florida east coast (Indian River Lagoon and the waters off 

Brevard County [within the AOI] through Broward County [south of the AOI]) is a prime foraging area 

for green turtles. However, because green turtle diet consists of seagrasses and macroalgae, it is possible 

that green turtles use other sites within the AOI (Virginia-Florida) where macroalgae is found. In the 

southeastern U.S., nesting generally occurs from June-September; females nest at 2- to 4-year intervals. 

Similar to other sea turtles, age at sexual maturity is not reached until late in life at around 20-50 years of 

age; clutch size varies from 75-200 eggs, and incubation is between 20 and 50 days. Female green turtles 

usually deposit two or three clutches per breeding season, with internesting intervals ranging from 12 to 

14 days (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007a).

Hazel et al. (2009) documented various interesting daily diving behaviors of green turtles in nearshore 

foraging habitats in Australia. The researchers found that the majority of the turtles spent most of time 

(89-100%) at depths (<5 m [16.4 ft]) near the surface. They also found that dives were shorter and 

shallower during the day than at night, suggesting that green turtles rest at night and forage during the 

day. Hazel et al. (2009) also indicated that this phenomenon was consistent with the requirement to 

surface more often during increased activity (daytime foraging). In addition, Hazel et al. (2009) found 

that green turtle dives became longer as water temperatures decreased. Despite the ability for sea turtles

to dive to deep depths, Hazel et al. (2009) postulated that green turtles chose not to dive to deeper depths 

at night given the distance (3 or 6 km [1.9 or 3.7 mi]) it was from shallow (foraging areas) to deeper 

waters. Off the Hawaiian Islands, Rice and Balazs (2008) documented the diving behavior of two adult 

green turtles in the open-ocean environment. Findings demonstrated that green turtles also displayed a 

shallow daytime and deeper nighttime dive pattern. In general, the two green turtles spent the day near 

the surface and dove to around 35 or 55 m (115 or 180 ft) at night; mean duration was 33-44 min. The 

maximum depths recorded were two dives by one female greater than 135-m (443 ft) and one dive by one 

male to 100 m (328 ft) (Rice and Balazs, 2008).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-83

4.2.3.1.3. Hawksbill Turtle

Range and Spatial Distribution

The hawksbill turtle is a medium-size cheloniid sea turtle. Adults can reach to 1.1 m (3.5 ft) in 

carapace length and 82 kg (180 lb) in mass (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007b). The hawksbill 

turtle is a circumglobal species found in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans (USDOC, NMFS and 

USDOI, FWS, 2007b). The hawksbill turtle can be found in tropical and subtropical waters between 

latitudes 30° N and 30° S (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007b). Hawksbill turtles display highly 

migratory behavior, with satellite tagging data demonstrating that these turtles display short and long 

migrations from nesting to foraging grounds (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007b; Blumenthal 

et al., 2009). In the western North Atlantic, hawksbill turtles can be found from Florida to Massachusetts, 

but they are rarely reported north of Florida and within the AOI. In comparison to the other sea turtles

potentially found within the region, the hawksbill turtle has a restricted distribution and range given that 

its habitat (foraging) preference is coral reefs, which are found only in near coastal areas to the south of 

the AOI. Limited information on hawksbill turtle home ranges suggests they are smaller than for other 

sea turtle species (Witt et al., 2010b). Although it is a rare occurrence, USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, 

FWS (1993) report that hawksbill nesting has been reported not only in south Florida counties 

(Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin) but also in Volusia County, which is within the AOI. 

Juvenile hawksbill turtles have been reported to use offshore floating mats of Sargassum as habitat, so it 

is possible that hawksbill turtles are found in the offshore areas of the AOI that are associated with the 

Gulf Stream (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1993); the Gulf Stream often transports large patches of 

Sargassum as it moves from south to north. In addition to offshore and reef habitats, hawksbill turtles are 

also known to use mangrove-fringed bays, estuaries (Carr, 1952), and Caribbean seagrass habitats 

(Bjorndal and Bolten, 1988, 2010). Based on this information, it is therefore possible that hawksbill 

turtles may occur in other southern sections of the AOI.

Population Status

The hawksbill turtle population is severely depleted and continues to be threatened (Bjorndal, 1999). 

Although there is no reliable hawksbill turtle population estimate, conclusions have been made from 

nesting data. There are no nesting estimates for hawksbill turtles within the AOI, but the number of 

nesting females per season in the Caribbean ranges from 3 to 19 in Bonaire to 400-833 in Cuba (USDOC, 

NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007b). The recent 5-year status review reported that the number of hawksbill 

turtles nesting in the western North Atlantic has decreased over the last 20 years (USDOC, NMFS and 

USDOI, FWS, 2007b). However, nesting populations of hawksbill turtles in this region are much larger 

than in some other regions (e.g., Indo-Pacific Ocean), where populations continue to decline. Limpus and 

Miller (2008) reported that the hawksbill turtle nesting population in north Queensland, Australia, has 

declined 3 percent in recent time. However, in Barbados, West Indies, hawksbill turtle nesting data show 

some promise that the population is improving (Beggs et al., 2007). Beggs et al. (2007) reported 

increases from 316 nests and 77 females in 1992 to 2016 nests and 492 females in 2004. Based on these 

data, Beggs et al. (2007) indicated that the hawksbill turtle population in Barbados could be the second 

largest rookery in the wider Caribbean; the largest rookery is in Mexico. Despite showing some signs of 

recovery, the hawksbill turtle population has not reached an adequate level that warrants delisting or 

reclassification (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007b).

Conservation and Management 

The conservation and recovery of the hawksbill turtle is administered through various regulatory 

mechanisms such as designating critical habitat and implementing conservation regulations. Critical 

habitat for the hawksbill turtle was originally designated in 1982 and subsequently in 1998 

(Federal Register, 1998a). Critical habitat for the hawksbill turtle includes Mona, Culebrita, and Culebra 

Islands in Puerto Rico, and the waters surrounding the islands of Mona and Monito (3-5 km [1.9-3.1 mi]). 

Critical habitat also includes specific beaches on Culebra Island (Playa Resaca, Playa Brava, and Playa 

Larga). Other conservation measures governed by Federal agencies include implementing various 

recovery plan and commercial fishery measures to prevent further serious injury and mortality to sea
4-84 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

turtles. The agencies also support several international agreements for the conservation of sea turtles, 

such as the South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding in the Indian Ocean. 

Campbell et al. (2009) indicate that the co-management between local communities and government 

agencies is a strategy to improve fisheries management that has the potential to reduce sea turtle fishery 

interactions. The recovery of the hawksbill turtle population is threatened by many ongoing 

anthropogenic threats, including commercial fishery interactions, habitat loss (i.e., reefs), global climatic 

changes (sea level rise), and fibropapillomatosis (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007b). In 

addition, the continued overutilization of hawksbill turtles for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is another major threat to the recovery of the species (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, 

FWS, 2007b).

Ecology and Life History 

Hatchling hawksbill turtles emerge from the nest and actively swim offshore at night to areas of water 

mass convergence. Hawksbill post-hatchlings in the laboratory appear to be attracted to patches of 

floating Sargassum, which they use as protective cover (Musick and Limpus, 1997). Data suggest that 

juvenile (or post-hatchling) hawksbills move into neritic developmental habitats at a smaller size than 

either loggerhead or green turtles; neritic developmental habitats include shallow coral reefs and 

mangrove estuaries (Witzell, 1983). Because of their preference for these habitats, neritic juvenile 

hawksbill turtles may occur only within the southernmost areas of the AOI.

Adult hawksbill turtles specialize on a diet of sponges and feed very selectively on specific species of 

demosponges (Bjorndal, 1997). They may also consume a variety of other food items such as algae and 

other benthic invertebrates (Márquez, 1990). In the Caribbean, hawksbill turtles are often sighted feeding 

along coral reefs and hard bottom communities (Blumenthal et al., 2009). Unlike some of the other sea 

turtles found within Atlantic OCS waters, hawksbill turtles primarily nest on Mexican (Yucatán 

Peninsula) and Caribbean (Puerto Rico [Culebra, Mona, and Vieques Islands] to Barbados) beaches; some 

nesting has been reported in South Florida and the Florida Keys, but this is rare (USDOC, NMFS and 

USDOI, FWS, 1993). Depending on the location, nesting season occurs during various summer and fall 

months (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1993). For example, hawksbill nesting occurs from 

July-October on Buck Island (U.S. Virgin Islands) and from August-October on Mona Island (Puerto 

Rico), with females nesting at 2- or 3-year intervals. In Barbados, West Indies, Beggs et al. (2007) 

reported that nesting occurred year-round during 1997 through 2004, with peak months from 

June-August. These researchers also discovered that nesting interval ranged from 2- 6 years with a mean 

of 2.5 years. Overall, the average 6-month nesting season for the hawksbill turtle is longer than for other 

sea turtle (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1993). Female hawksbill turtles usually deposit from 3 to 

5 clutches per breeding season (~14 days) (Beggs et al., 2007; USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 

2007b). Age at sexual maturity is between 20 and 40 years; average clutch size is around 135 eggs, and 

incubation is around 60 days.

There is some information about the diving behavior of hawksbill turtles. In Milman Island, 

Australia, Bell and Parmenter (2008) recorded the diving behavior of nine female hawksbill turtles that 

had previously laid eggs and two females that had not successfully laid any eggs. Results from the study 

showed that the nine hawksbill turtles primarily spent their time near the surface but did make occasional 

deeper dives. The maximum depth recorded was 21.5 m (70.5 ft), and the researchers did not find any 

significant difference between day and night dive behaviors. On average, the dive time and surface 

interval for the nine turtles were 31.2 and 1.6 min, respectively. On the reefs of Mona Island, Puerto 

Rico, van Dam and Diez (1997) reported the diving patterns of five juvenile hawksbill turtles. Results 

showed that mean dive behavior associated with foraging ranged from 8 to 10 m (26 to 33 ft), dive 

durations ranged from 19 to 26 min, and surface intervals ranged from 37 to 64 s. Night dives ranged 

from 7 to 10 m (23 to 33 ft), dive durations ranged from 35 to 47 min, and surface intervals ranged from 

36 to 60 s (van Dam and Diez, 1997).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-85

4.2.3.1.4. Kemp’s Ridley Turtle

Range and Spatial Distribution

The Kemp’s ridley is the smallest sea turtle; adults reach only 76 cm (30 in) in carapace length and 

range from 36 to 45 kg (80 to 100 lb) in mass. The Kemp’s ridley turtle is generally found in the Gulf of 

Mexico and is occasionally sighted along the east coast from Florida to New England (USDOC, NMFS

et al., 2010). Overall, it may be the least abundant sea turtle in the region.

Foraging areas along the Atlantic Coast include various embayments and estuarine systems from 

Florida to New York. Coles (1999) reported that Kemp’s ridley turtles were frequently sighted in 

Chesapeake Bay during the summer over a continuous 18-year sea turtle stranding survey and indicated 

that Kemp’s ridleys ranked second in the number of strandings per year in the MAB. Coles (1999) also 

indicated that the MAB is an important foraging area for juvenile Kemp’s ridley turtles during spring 

through fall. Satellite tracking data document seasonal migration along the inner shelf of the eastern 

U.S. from New England to Florida. Wintering habitats for Kemp’s ridley turtles in the northwestern 

Atlantic include shelf habitats off Florida and waters south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Gitschlag, 

1996).

There is some evidence of Kemp’s ridley turtles nesting on beaches within the AOI, but this is 

considered rare (USDOC, NMFS et al., 2010). Johnson et al. (1999) reported that Kemp’s ridley turtles 

nest on the beaches of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida (Ponce Inlet and New Smyrna Beach, 

Volusia County); all of these locales are adjacent to the AOI. Johnson et al. (1999) also reported Kemp’s 

ridley turtles nesting in Palm Beach County, Florida, which is south of the AOI.

Similar to other sea turtles, Kemp’s ridley turtles display some seasonal and coastal migratory 

behavior; satellite tagging data indicate that Kemp’s ridley turtles transit between nearshore and offshore 

waters (within 28 km [50 mi]) from spring/summer to fall/winter, which coincides with seasonal water 

temperature changes (USDOC, NMFS et al., 2010). The home ranges of Kemp’s ridley turtles may be 

similar to those of loggerhead turtles (Shaver et al., 2005).

Population Status

The Kemp’s ridley turtle population is severely depleted, and it is considered the most endangered sea 

turtle (USDOI, FWS, 1999). Kemp’s ridley turtles were once abundant, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, 

but today they are struggling. The draft recovery plan states that at one single nesting event (arribada) in 

Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, during 1947, approximately 42,000 nesting females were reported (USDOC, 

NMFS et al., 2010). However, by the mid-1980’s, the number of nests had declined from 40,000 to about 

only 700 nests per year. Today, the population is stressed and there are no reliable Kemp’s ridley turtle 

population estimates. Given that most of the Kemp’s ridley turtle population nests in one location, better 

population estimates have been inferred from nesting data (USDOI, FWS, 1999). Using various 

assumptions, the current population estimate of Kemp’s ridley turtles is approximately 738 females, but 

the number of nesting Kemp’s ridley turtles continues to improve. Márquez (2001) indicated that the 

annual number of nests in Tamaulipas, Mexico, has increased between 8 and 12 percent since 1988. 

USDOC, NMFS et al. (2010) reported that the number of nests per season in Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, 

recently exceeded 20,000 and stated that the nesting population is growing exponentially.

Conservation and Management 

The conservation and recovery of the Kemp’s ridley turtle is conducted through various regulatory 

mechanisms, such as habitat protection efforts, protecting nesting females, and maintaining or increasing 

hatchling production levels. Other conservation measures include restrictions on commercial fishery 

activities to prevent serious injury and mortality to sea turtles, and several international agreements, such 

as CITES. Critical habitat has not been designated, but the agencies were petitioned on February 17,

2010, under the ESA to designate Kemp’s ridley critical habitat (USDOC, NMFS, 2011i). The agencies 

are currently evaluating the data and considering whether the scientific information warrants designating 

the areas (i.e., Texas nesting locations and feeding locations along the east coast [Ten Thousand Islands, 

Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico and Pamlico Sound, Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Charleston 
4-86 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Harbor, and Delaware Bay] to water depth of 40 m [131 ft]) listed under the petition (WildEarth 

Guardians, 2010).

The recovery of the Kemp’s ridley turtle is threatened by many activities such as commercial fishery 

interactions, ongoing habitat loss, global disease, climatic changes, pollution, and ecosystem alterations 

(USDOC, NMFS et al., 2011). Given that the majority of the population nests in one location in Mexico, 

human population growth and urban development are serious threats to Kemp’s ridley nesting beaches 

(USDOI, FWS, 1999). Mexico and the U.S. (NMFS) collaborate to conserve and restore the species

under the Kemp’s Ridley Restoration and Enhancement Program (Head Start) in Rancho Nuevo, 

Tamaulipas, Mexico. This government program and Natural Reserve continues today and has expanded 

to include the state of Veracruz. Today, there are over 200 km (124 mi) of nesting sites that are protected 

under the program (Márquez, 2001). Besides international collaboration efforts, NMFS also continues to 

implement various conservation regulations in commercial fisheries such as the use of TEDs to protect all 

sea turtles, including the Kemp’s ridley. Other threats to sea turtles including the Kemp’s ridley include 

dredging operations; hopper dredging activities occur throughout the AOI on a regular basis, especially 

from North Carolina to Florida.

Ecology and Life History 

Hatchling Kemp’s ridley turtles leave the nest at night and actively swim offshore into the 

anticyclonic Mexican Current and into the northern Gulf of Mexico. Some oceanic post-hatchling and 

juvenile Kemp’s ridleys are retained in the northern Gulf until they migrate inshore to neritic

developmental habitats, while others may be swept into the Loop Current and north into the Gulf Stream 

(Collard, 1990). Neritic developmental habitats include shallow coastal areas in the Gulf of Mexico and 

in areas of the western North Atlantic as far north as Long Island Sound. Chesapeake Bay is an important 

developmental habitat for this species (Musick and Limpus, 1997). Neritic juvenile Kemp’s ridleys 

undergo seasonal migrations within the AOI.

The Kemp’s ridley turtle is a carnivore throughout its life cycle (Márquez, 1990). Adult and subadult 

Kemp’s ridley turtles are benthic feeders that primarily feed on crabs. Other preferred food items include 

shrimps, mollusks, sea urchins, and fishes (opportunistically) (USDOC, NMFS et al., 2011). In the 

western North Atlantic Ocean, Kemp’s ridley turtles primarily nest on Gulf of Mexico beaches in Mexico 

(Tamaulipas and Veracruz) during April through July. The mean clutch is 2.5 per breeding season 

(14-28 days), average clutch size is around 100 eggs, and incubation is between 45 and 58 days; females 

nest at 2-year intervals (USDOC, NMFS et al., 2011). Age at sexual maturity for wild Kemp’s ridleys 

has been reported to be between 10 and 16 years. 

Available information about Kemp’s ridley turtles in the open ocean is limited, but there is some 

information about their diving behavior. In the Gulf of Mexico, Schmid et al. (2002) reported a surface 

interval between 1 and 88 s and a mean submergence duration of 8.4 min. Overall, these researchers did 

not find any differences between day and night surface activities but did find a diel difference in some 

years (1994 vs. 1995). The data also showed that the mean submergence interval during the night was 

longer than during the day (Schmid et al., 2002).

4.2.3.1.5. Leatherback Turtle

Range and Spatial Distribution

The leatherback turtle is the largest sea turtle and the largest reptile; adults reach up to 1.8 m (6 ft) in 

carapace length and 907 kg (2,000 lb) in mass. They are easily distinguished from all other sea turtle 

species by their large spindle-shaped, leathery, and unscaled carapaces that possess a series of parallel 

dorsal ridges, or keels (Márquez, 1990). The leatherback turtle is a cosmopolitan species that is found in 

the Mediterranean Sea and Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans; it is reported as having the widest 

distribution of any sea turtle (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). In the Atlantic Ocean, the 

leatherback turtle is reported throughout the North Sea, Canadian waters, and along the east coast of the 

U.S. and into the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Leatherback turtles are found throughout the AOI, 

depending on the season. In Virginia, Coles (1999) reported from sea turtle stranding data that 

leatherback turtles were frequently sighted and stranded in Chesapeake Bay during 1979 through 1997. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-87

Off South Carolina, leatherback turtles are primarily found from April-June when cannonball jellyfish 

(Stomolophus meleagris) are abundant, and again in October and November (SCDNR, 2005b).

Along the U.S. east coast, the principal nesting beaches for leatherback turtles are in Florida. 

According to SCDNR (2005b), leatherback turtles have also been documented to nest in Georgia, South 

Carolina (four leatherback nests since 1996), North Carolina, and possibly in Maryland.

Satellite tagging data demonstrate that leatherback turtles display wide-ranging coastal and 

transoceanic movements (Hays et al., 2006; USDOC, NMFS et al., 2010) and have the most wide-ranging 

distribution of any sea turtle. Because leatherback turtles appear to adapt quickly to local environmental 

conditions, they do not display any restricted distributional and movement behaviors (Hays et al., 2006; 

USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). James et al. (2005a,b) described only few high-use areas for 

Atlantic leatherback turtles compared with the total area traveled through, suggesting a low-fidelity to any 

particular area. In fact, Eckert (2006) reported that leatherback turtles tagged in Trinidad were later 

reported off Newfoundland (Flemish Cap), Canada, and subsequently in Mauritanian waters. Genetic 

techniques have been used to distinguish five groups or populations in the western North Atlantic Ocean: 

Florida, Northern Caribbean, Western Caribbean, Southern Caribbean (includes northern Brazil), and 

Southern Brazil (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). Genetic studies support the natal homing 

hypothesis, which has been reported for other sea turtles (Godley et al., 2010). Leatherback turtles tend to 

use specific beach sites within their respective regions for nesting.

Population Status

Similar to other sea turtles, the leatherback turtle population is also depleted; however, in comparison 

to other sea turtles, the population is more stable (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). Spotila 

et al. (1996) estimated there were about 115,000 individuals in 1980. The most recent population 

estimate for leatherback turtles in the Atlantic is smaller – between 34,000 and 94,000 – but apparently 

stable (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). Leatherback turtles are highly migratory (Shillinger 

et al., 2008) and migrate further than any other reptile (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). 

Recent survey data clearly show that the nesting numbers have dramatically increased, from 98 nests in 

1988 to around 850 nests in the early 2000’s (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). Using the 

number of nests as a population index, the estimated annual growth rate for leatherback turtles is around 

1.17 (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c).

Conservation and Management 

The conservation and recovery of the leatherback turtle is governed through various regulatory 

mechanisms such as attempting to meet specific recovery plan objectives, habitat protection efforts, and 

protecting nesting females. Other conservation measures include imposing restrictions on commercial 

fishery activities to prevent serious injury and mortality to sea turtles (e.g., circle hook requirements in the 

pelagic longline fishery and the use of TEDs in trawls) and supporting several international agreements, 

such as the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Moreover, 

NMFS has developed and is attempting to implement a Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and 

Recovery in Relation to Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries, which focuses on specific commercial 

fishing gear-related criteria. To assist decision makers, agencies also fund many research projects, 

e.g., the South Carolina nearshore aerial and nesting surveys, and short-term telemetry studies (SCDNR, 

2005b).

Critical habitat was initially designated for the leatherback turtle in 1979 (Federal Register, 1979). 

Critical habitat was defined as specific areas for the U.S. Virgin Islands: a strip of land 0.2-mi (0.3-km) 

wide at Sandy Point Beach, St. Croix, and the waters adjacent to the site (shore to 100-fathom curve). In 

February 2010, NMFS and FWS were petitioned to revise critical habitat to include the offshore waters to 

allow for safe and timely passage and access to/from/within nesting sites at San Miguel, Paulinas, and 

Convento Beaches in the Northeast Ecological Corridor of Puerto Rico, and to protect reproductive 

activities offshore of these sites (Sierra Club, 2010). In July 2010, NMFS concluded that the petition did 

not warrant revision of the critical habitat (Federal Register, 2010h). Leatherback turtles have various 

anthropogenic threats to their recovery, which include but are not limited to commercial fisheries, habitat 

loss (nesting), climatic change (e.g., sea-level rise, shifts in prey availability), pollution, overutilization 
4-88 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes (e.g., egg harvesting), and disease 

(USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2007c).

Ecology and Life History 

Like other sea turtle species, hatchling leatherback turtles leave the nest and swim actively offshore. 

Post-hatchling and oceanic juvenile leatherbacks are more active than other sea turtle species (Wyneken 

and Salmon, 1992). These oceanic juveniles virtually disappear for 4 years (Musick and Limpus, 1997). 

Their requirements for gelatinous prey suggest that they may search for areas of major upwelling. 

Juvenile (as well as adult) leatherbacks recruit seasonally to temperate and boreal coastal habitats to feed 

on concentrations of jellyfish (Lutcavage and Lutz, 1986). In the western North Atlantic, juveniles appear 

in these habitats at a body length of 110-120 cm (43-47 in) (Musick and Limpus, 1997). It is likely that 

post-hatchling and oceanic juvenile leatherback turtles may be present within offshore and coastal waters 

of the AOI.

Leatherback turtles have a wide-ranging distribution and apparently are able to adapt and tolerate cold 

water temperatures; most sea turtles sighted in the Chesapeake Bay were in waters between 25 and 29°C

(Coles, 1999). Coles (1999) indicated that sea turtle distribution may not be random but may be 

associated with specific water temperature ranges. Adult leatherback turtles have been reported to 

migrate from equatorial to temperate waters to forage, which is unique for sea turtles (USDOC, NMFS

and USDOI, FWS, 2007c). Leatherback turtles primarily feed on pelagic gelatinous invertebrates such as 

scyphomedusae (jellyfish) and pelagic tunicates (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1992; Bjorndal, 

1997), and seasonal movements appear to be correlated with jellyfish seasonal abundance (SCDNR, 

2005b). Unlike other sea turtles, leatherback turtles can begin nesting much earlier in the year. 

Leatherback turtles have been reported to nest as early as February or March, with peak nesting in July; 

females nest at 2- or 3-year intervals. In Atlantic OCS waters and within the AOI, the leatherback turtle 

is reported to nest mainly on Florida beaches. Age at sexual maturity has been reported to be much 

younger than for other sea turtles, at around 6-10 years. The average clutch size is around 100 eggs, and 

incubation is between 60 and 65 days; females deposit between five and seven nests per breeding season, 

with internesting intervals ranging from approximately 8-12 days (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 

2007c).

Knowledge about leatherback turtles in their open ocean environment is limited, but there is some 

published information about daily movement and dive behaviors. Off South Africa, Sale et al. (2006) 

investigated leatherback turtle diving behavior during oceanic movements. Results from that study 

demonstrated that leatherback turtles primarily dove to depths less than 200 m (656 ft), and maximum 

dive durations were between 30 and 40 min. Findings also showed that leatherback turtles displayed 

differences in dive patterns depending on the time of day. At night and at specific periods, leatherback 

turtles dove longer. Interestingly, the researchers reported some of the deepest and longest dives during 

the day for a few individuals. Using tagging data from nine turtles (181-431 days), Hays et al. (2006) also 

recorded seasonal movements from the south (Caribbean) to the north (northeastern coast of the U.S.) 

during the summer and from the north to the south during the fall. With these seasonal movements, the

researchers found that as the individuals moved from southern to northern latitudes, the dives were 

initially longer but then became progressively shallower and shorter. In addition, Hays et al. (2006) 

documented that leatherback turtles also displayed a diel dive pattern with more diving and shallower 

diving at night than during the day for the individuals located between 18° and 30° N. Mean dive 

duration ranged from 3-5 to 30 min, and mean dive depth ranged from surface waters to almost 250 m 

(820 ft). The overall swimming speed ranged from 2.5 to 82.5 km (1.5 to 51 mi) per day; most 

leatherback turtles swam between 32.5 and 42.5 km (20 and 26 mi) per day. Hays et al. (2006) concluded 

that leatherback turtles do not display highly migratory behavior (i.e., swim from southern to northern 

waters) just to forage at specific “hotspots” but instead continuously feed as they travel. However, the 

researchers noted that leatherback turtles did remain in specific areas for short durations to feed, and their 

daily diving patterns were correlated with prey abundance.

4.2.3.1.6. Summary of Sea Turtle Hearing Capabilities

A brief overview of sea turtle hearing is presented here. For more information, see Appendix I. Few 

studies have examined the role acoustic cues play in the ecology of sea turtles (Mrosovsky, 1972; Samuel 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-89

et al., 2005; Nunny et al., 2008). Sea turtles may use sound for navigation, locating prey, avoiding 

predators, and environmental awareness (Dow Piniak et al., 2012a). There is evidence that sea turtles 

may also use sound to communicate, but the few vocalizations described for sea turtles are restricted to 

the “grunts” of nesting females (Mrosovsky, 1972). These sounds are low-frequency and relatively loud, 

thus leading to speculation that nesting females use sounds to communicate with conspecifics 

(Mrosovsky, 1972). Very little is known about the extent to which sea turtles use their auditory 

environment. The acoustic environment for sea turtles changes with each ontogenetic habitat shift. In the 

inshore environment where juvenile and adult sea turtles generally reside, the ambient environment is 

noisier than the open ocean environment of the hatchlings; this inshore environment is dominated by 

low-frequency sound (Hawkins and Myrberg, 1983) and, in highly trafficked areas, virtually constant 

low-frequency noises from shipping and recreational boating (Hildebrand, 2009).

Much of the research on the hearing capacity of sea turtles is limited to gross morphological 

dissections (Wever, 1978; Lenhardt et al., 1985). Based on the functional morphology of the ear, it 

appears that sea turtles receive sound through the standard vertebrate tympanic middle ear path. The sea 

turtle ear appears to be a poor receptor for aerial sounds but is well adapted to detect underwater sound. 

Organized bundles of coherent fatty tissues under the tympanum act as a low-impedance channel for 

underwater sound. Furthermore, the retention of air in the middle ear of these sea turtles suggests that 

they are able to detect sound pressure (Ketten, 2008). 

Electrophysiological studies on hearing have been conducted on juvenile green turtles (Ridgway 

et al., 1969; Bartol and Ketten, 2006), juvenile Kemp’s ridley turtles (Bartol and Ketten, 2006), and 

juvenile loggerhead turtles (Bartol et al., 1999; Lavender et al., 2011, 2012). Electrophysiological 

responses, specifically auditory evoked potentials (AEPs), are the most widely accepted technique for 

measuring hearing in situations in which normal behavioral testing is impractical. Most AEP research has 

concentrated on detectable neural electrical responses occurring within the first 10 ms following 

presentation of a click or brief tone, which has been termed the auditory brainstem response (ABR).

Ridgway et al. (1969) measured AEPs of green turtles using both aerial and vibrational stimuli. 

Green turtles detect a limited frequency range (200-700 Hz) with best sensitivity at the low-tone region of 

about 400 Hz. Though this investigation examined two separate modes of sound reception (i.e., air and 

bone conduction), sensitivity curves were relatively similar, suggesting that the inner ear is the main 

structure for determining frequency sensitivity. To measure electrophysiological responses to sound 

stimuli, Bartol et al. (1999) collected ABRs from juvenile loggerhead turtles. Thresholds were recorded 

for both tonal and click stimuli. Best sensitivity was found in the low-frequency region of 250-1,000 Hz. 

The decline in sensitivity was rapid above 1,000 Hz, and the most sensitive threshold tested was at 

250 Hz. More recently, Bartol and Ketten (2006) collected underwater ABRs from hatchling and juvenile 

loggerhead and juvenile green turtles using speakers suspended in air while the turtle’s tympanum 

remained submerged. All turtles tested responded to sounds in the low-frequency range, from at least 

100 Hz (lowest frequency tested) to no greater than 900 Hz. The smallest turtles tested, hatchling 

loggerheads, had the greatest range of hearing (100-900 Hz), while the larger juveniles responded to a 

much narrower range (100-400 Hz). Hearing sensitivity of green turtles also varied with size; smaller 

greens had a broader range of hearing (100-800 Hz) than that detected in larger subjects (100-500 Hz). 

Using underwater speakers as a sound source, Lavender et al. (2011, 2012) measured underwater AEPs in 

loggerhead turtles ranging from yearlings to subadults and detected responses to frequencies between 

50 and 1,000 Hz. Dow Piniak et al. recorded both in-air and in-water AEP responses from juvenile green 

turtles (2012a) and leatherback turtles (2012b). Generally, sea turtle AEP signal signature was similar to 

that seen in fish, with a frequency-doubling response observed at 400 Hz. As observed in other studies, 

juvenile green turtles responded to stimuli between 50 and 1,600 Hz in water and 50 and 800 Hz in air. 

Ranges of maximum sensitivity were between 50 and 400 Hz in water and 300 and 400 Hz in air. In both 

media, sensitivity decreased sharply for frequencies above 400 Hz. Leatherback sea turtle hatchlings are 

able to detect sounds underwater and in air, responding to stimuli between 50 and 1,200 Hz in water and 

50 and 1,600 Hz in air, with maximum sensitivity between 100 and 400 Hz in water (84 dB re 1 μPa-rms 

at 300 Hz) and 50 and 400 Hz in air (62 dB re 20 μPa-rms at 300 Hz) (Dow Piniak et al., 2012b). These 

studies show that sea turtles are particularly sensitive to low-frequency sounds and so are able to hear 

much of the low-frequency and high-intensity anthropogenic noise in the ocean such as vessel traffic and 

offshore oil and gas exploration activities.
4-90 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.3.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

Preliminary screening discussed in Chapter 4.1.1 identified five IPFs from routine G&G activities 

that may affect sea turtles: (1) active acoustic sound sources; (2) vessel and equipment noise; (3) vessel 

traffic; (4) aircraft traffic and noise; and (5) trash and debris (Table 4-2). Significance criteria are 

presented below, followed by discussion of individual IPFs.

4.2.3.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to sea turtles would include those where little to no measurable impacts are 

observed or expected. There would be (1) no mortality or serious and permanent injury to any individual 

sea turtle; (2) brief disruption(s) of behavioral patterns or other non-injurious effects; and (3) no 

displacement of sea turtles from preferred feeding or breeding areas, nesting beaches, or migratory routes.

Minor impacts to sea turtles would be detectable but neither severe nor extensive. Minor impacts to 

sea turtles would include (1) non-life-threatening injuries to one or more individuals of a sea turtle 

species; (2) short-term displacement of sea turtles from preferred feeding or breeding areas, nesting 

beaches, or migratory routes; and (3) little disruption of critical, time-sensitive behaviors such as nesting, 

breeding, or the emergence and dispersion of hatchlings. 

Moderate impacts to sea turtles would be detectable and extensive but not severe. Limited impacts to

sea turtles would include (1) limited serious injuries or mortalities in low enough numbers such that the 

continued viability of the population is not threatened; (2) protracted displacement of individual sea 

turtles from preferred feeding or breeding areas, nesting beaches, or migratory routes; and (3) limited 

disruption of critical, time-sensitive behaviors such as nesting, breeding, or the emergence and dispersion 

of hatchlings resulting in the loss of breeding and egg-bearing adults and hatchlings. Because of the 

relatively low numbers of sea turtles affected, the viability or continued existence of affected local sea 

turtle populations would not be threatened, although some impacts such as physical injuries and the 

reduction in productivity from disrupted or lost nesting opportunities may be long-term or irreversible.

Major impacts to sea turtles would be detectable, extensive, and severe. Major impacts to sea turtles 

would include (1) extensive serious (life-threatening) injuries or mortalities in sufficiently high numbers 

that the continued viability of the local population is seriously threatened; (2) long-term or permanent 

displacement of individual sea turtles from preferred feeding or breeding areas, nesting beaches, or 

migratory routes; (3) substantial disruption (i.e., affecting large numbers of the local population) of 

critical, time-sensitive behaviors such as nesting, breeding, the emergence and dispersion of hatchlings 

resulting in the loss of breeding and egg-bearing adults and hatchlings; and (4) destruction or adverse 

modification of sea turtle habitats, including feeding or breeding areas, nesting beaches, or migratory 

routes.

4.2.3.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Source Characteristics

Active acoustic sound sources included in the proposed action are airguns as well as various 

electromechanical sources such as boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; side-scan sonars; and 

multibeam depth sounders. Source characteristics are summarized in Table 3-11, and detailed 

characteristics and acoustic modeling assumptions are presented in Appendix D. 

Airguns would be used as seismic sources during deep penetration seismic and non-airgun HRG

surveys to support renewable energy projects and oil and gas surveys. HRG surveys using only 

electromechanical acoustic sources would be used to support projects or surveys in all the three program 

areas. The renewable energy scenario includes the possibility of a deep penetration seismic survey to 

evaluate formation suitability for carbon sequestration. However, given the much greater number and 

extent of seismic airgun surveys included in the oil and gas scenario, a single seismic survey for carbon 

sequestration is not analyzed separately.

For this Programmatic EIS, two sizes of airgun arrays were modeled, based on current usage in the 

Gulf of Mexico, and considered representative for potential Atlantic G&G seismic airgun surveys:
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-91

• large airgun array (5,400 in3

) – this array was used to represent sound sources for 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys, including 2D, 3D, WAZ, and other 

variations; and

• small airgun array (90 in3

) – this array was used to represent sound sources for HRG

surveys for oil and gas exploration sites.

Broadband source levels are 230.7 dB re 1 μPa for the large airgun array and 210.3 dB re 1 μPa for 

the small array (Table 3-11). Although airguns have a frequency range from about 10 to 2,000 Hz, most 

of the acoustic energy is radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. Sea turtle hearing and sensitivity to

acoustic impacts are reviewed in Appendix I and summarized in Chapter 4.2.3.1.6. From this review of 

existing information, it is known that underwater noise from airguns is expected to be within the 

functional hearing range of sea turtles (generally between 100 and 1,600 Hz) and is likely to be audible to 

them.

Detailed acoustic characteristics of electromechanical sources, including side-scan sonars, subbottom 

profilers, and depth sounders, are discussed in Appendix D. Acoustic signals from electromechanical 

sources other than the boomer and sparker subbottom profilers are not likely to be detectable by sea 

turtles. The boomer has an operating frequency range of 200 Hz–16 kHz and so may be audible to sea 

turtles; however, it has very short pulse lengths (120, 150, or 180 μs) and a very low source level, with a 

180-dB radius of less than 5 m (16 ft) (Appendix C). 

Types of Impacts on Sea Turtles

Active acoustic sound sources could have a range of effects on sea turtles. In order of decreasing 

severity, these could include death, physical injury, hearing threshold shift, auditory masking, and 

behavioral responses. Hearing threshold shifts, auditory masking, and behavioral responses are discussed 

in detail below. No mortality or injury is expected of sea turtles from airguns, which are the sound 

sources with the highest source levels. Behavioral responses are the most likely impact, with a limited 

potential for hearing threshold shift and masking effects for sea turtles close to an airgun array.

Hearing Threshold Shift: Auditory impacts such as TTS or PTS could occur in sea turtles. 

However, unlike marine mammals, criteria have not been developed for these effects in sea turtles, mainly 

because of the few data that exist on sea turtles hearing. The TTS, by definition, is a temporary and 

recoverable damage to hearing structures (sensory hair cells) and can vary in intensity and duration. For 

individuals experiencing TTS, normal hearing abilities would return over time; however, animals may 

lack the ability to detect prey and predators and assess their environment during the recovery period. In 

contrast, PTS results in the permanent though variable loss of hearing through the loss of sensory hair 

cells (Clark, 1991). Few studies have looked at hair cell damage in reptiles, and studies do not indicate 

precisely if sea turtles are able to regenerate injured sensory hair cells (Warchol, 2011).

Because there are no hearing criteria for sea turtles, NMFS, during their Section 7 ESA consultations, 

typically apply the criteria for marine mammals to evaluate the potential for similar impacts. The current 

NMFS criterion for Level A harassment of cetaceans is a received SPL of 180 dB re 1 μPa; although not 

explicitly referring to TTS, this criterion is based on the potential for “overt behavioral, physiological, and 

hearing effects on marine mammals in general” (HESS, 1999). Calculations in Appendix D indicate that 

this zone could extend up to 2.1 km (1.3 mi) from a large airgun array (5,400 in3

) and up to 186 m (610 ft) 

from a small airgun array (90 in3

). However, the actual extent of the TTS zone is likely to be much 

smaller than this. Southall et al. (2007) proposed two TTS criteria for cetaceans, one involving SEL 

(which cannot be readily calculated here) and the other based on a received SPL of 230 dB re 1 μPa 

(peak). The 230 dB level would occur within a few meters of the center of an airgun array. If TTS occurs 

at similar received levels in sea turtles, the actual risk of auditory system impacts is likely to be limited to 

areas within an airgun array.

Auditory Masking: Noise below the TTS and PTS levels may have the potential to mask relevant 

sounds in the environment or induce simple behavioral changes in sea turtles such as evasive maneuvers 

(e.g., diving or changes in swimming direction and/or speed). Masking sounds can interfere with the 

acquisition of prey or mates, the avoidance of predators and, in the case of sea turtles the identification of 

an appropriate nesting site (Nunny et al., 2008). These maskers could have diverse origins, ranging from 

natural to anthropogenic sounds (Hildebrand, 2009). Because sea turtles appear to be low-frequency

specialists, the potential masking noises would fall mainly within the range of 50-1,000 Hz. There are no 
4-92 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

quantitative data demonstrating masking effects for sea turtles. Behavioral changes that may occur from 

masking sounds may have ecological consequences for sea turtles, although there are no quantitative data 

demonstrating these effects.

Behavioral Responses: Limited data exist on noise levels that may induce behavioral changes in sea 

turtles. Avoidance reactions to seismic signals have been observed at levels between 166 and 

179 dB re 1 μPa (Moein et al., 1995; McCauley et al., 2000a); however, both of these studies were done 

in a caged environment, so the extent of avoidance could not be monitored. In experiments attempting to 

use airguns to repel turtles from dredging operations, Moein et al. (1995) observed a habituation effect to 

airguns; the animals stopped responding to the signal after three presentations. From these results, it was 

not clear whether this lack of behavioral response was a result of behavioral habituation, or physical 

effects from TTS or PTS.

Analysis of the Proposed Action Scenario

Over the 2012-2020 time period, the proposed action includes 616,174 line km of 2D surveys, 

2,500 blocks of 3D surveys (or 120,000 line km, assuming 48 line km [30 line mi] per block), 

900 line km of 3D WAZ and FAZ coil surveys, 1,280 line km of VSP surveys, and 175,465 line km of 

HRG surveys (Table 3-9). These activities could occur anywhere within the AOI, with the exception of 

areas within the NARW time-area closure (which would also protect other marine mammals as well as 

sea turtles), as discussed in Chapter 2. 

The proposed action includes extensive non-airgun HRG surveys in both the renewable energy and 

marine minerals programs. The renewable energy program is estimated to include 211,585 km

(131,473 mi) of HRG surveys (Table 3-6). The marine minerals program would include approximately 

100-3,200 km (62-1,988 mi) of prospecting surveys, 850-4,300 km (528-2,672 mi) of prelease/design 

surveys, and 900-4,600 km (559-2,858 mi) of on-lease surveys (Table 3-7). However, these HRG 

surveys typically would use only the electromechanical sources described previously, which are expected 

to be beyond the functional hearing range of sea turtles. 

Based on the scope of the proposed action, seismic airgun surveys could affect individuals from all 

sea turtle species within the AOI, potentially including hawksbill turtles within the southernmost part of 

the AOI. Subadult and adult turtles may be more likely to be affected by seismic airgun noise than 

post-hatchling turtles because of the time that the former remain submerged and at depth. Post-hatchling 

turtles generally reside at or near the sea surface and may be less likely to be injured by the sound field 

produced by an airgun array during a survey, due to the rapid decay of waterborne seismic signals at the 

sea surface due to the “Lloyd mirror” effect (Urick, 1983). It is anticipated that seismic airgun surveys 

conducted close to the inshore limit of the AOI may affect a greater number of individual turtles, 

particularly species other than leatherbacks. Deepwater surveys are likely to affect fewer individual 

turtles but are more likely to affect leatherback turtles, particularly within areas of upwelling where 

individuals may be found in feeding aggregations. Also, surveys conducted during summer sea turtle 

nesting periods may affect greater numbers of adult turtles, particularly loggerhead, green, and 

leatherback turtles, than surveys conducted during non-nesting periods.

Appendix C discusses the operational mitigation measures that would be implemented during 

seismic airgun surveys, including the establishment of an acoustic exclusion zone, visual monitoring by 

PSOs, and array shutdown requirements. The purpose of these operational measures is to prevent serious 

injury to sea turtles (and marine mammals) by helping to ensure that they are not present within an 

acoustic exclusion zone around the airgun array. If the operational mitigation measures were 100 percent

successful, then most auditory impacts on sea turtles would be avoided. BOEM expects that mitigation 

measures would not be 100 percent effective, and therefore there is the potential to expose some sea 

turtles to sound levels that could cause TTS or PTS. However, no deaths or life-threatening injuries are 

expected.

The operational mitigation measures during seismic airgun surveys would not prevent behavioral 

disturbance to sea turtles at distances beyond the acoustic exclusion zone. As noted previously, 

avoidance reactions to seismic signals have been observed in sea turtles at received SPLs between 

166 and 179 dB re 1 μPa (Moein et al., 1995; McCauley et al., 2000a). Received SPLs of 

160 dB re 1 μPa could extend up to 15 km (9.3 mi) from a large airgun array (5,400 in3

) and up to 3 km 

(1.9 mi) from a small airgun array (90 in3

), depending on the geographic location and season modeled.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-93

Detection of sea turtles by visual monitoring during seismic airgun surveys can be problematic. Sea 

turtles spend most of their life below the sea surface. Individuals on the sea surface, particularly 

subadults and juveniles, are generally not demonstrative and may be difficult to detect during visual 

surveys, particularly at great distances and during periods of elevated sea states or low visibility. Most 

post-hatchling sea turtle species tend to aggregate in mats of floating Sargassum within or near zones of 

ocean current convergence, though it is unlikely that a visual observer would detect their presence during 

visual observation. Some species, such as green turtles and leatherback turtles, tend to avoid Sargassum

mats and may be even more difficult to detect during these visual surveys.

It is uncertain that sea turtles would move away from approaching and/or increasing levels of sound 

during the ramp-up period of a seismic survey. Observations of sea turtles in relation to seismic airgun

sound off Angola by Weir (2007) could not draw conclusions on the impacts on turtles of seismic airgun 

sound. There was some indication that fewer turtles were seen during full-array seismic, although there 

was no obvious behavioral avoidance (e.g., swimming away) of the airgun array. Basking turtles 

observed during this study may not have been able to move rapidly away from approaching airguns even 

if motivated to do so, since their responses to approaching objects are slow. A sea turtle’s response could 

also include diving to depths below the airgun array, which would increase the likelihood of related 

auditory impacts.

Based on the preceding analysis, the most likely impacts to sea turtles would be short-term behavioral 

responses of individuals in proximity to airgun arrays. In cases where individual sea turtles cannot or do 

not avoid airgun arrays and are not detected by visual observers, TTS or PTS could occur, but no deaths 

or life-threatening injuries are expected. Other active acoustic sources such as subbottom profilers, 

sonars, and depth sounders generate sounds with frequencies that are largely higher than the functional 

hearing range of sea turtles and are expected to have negligible effects.

In general, seismic airgun surveys would not be expected to result in the long-term or permanent 

displacement of sea turtles from preferred coastal habitats such as seagrass beds, nearshore or inshore 

hard substrate habitats, or embayments. During seismic airgun surveys, the source vessel typically travels 

at speeds of about 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). Assuming that behavioral responses could extend in a 15-km 

(9.3-mi) radius from a large airgun array and a 3-km (1.9-mi) radius from a small airgun array, as noted 

previously, the duration of disturbing sound levels for a stationary sea turtle would range from about 

45 min to 3.5 hr. 

Seismic airgun surveys conducted off of heavily used nesting beaches during the nesting season could 

temporarily displace breeding and nesting adult turtles and potentially disrupt time-critical activities. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.1, beaches of southeast Florida have been identified as the most important 

nesting area for loggerhead turtles (part of the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit) in the western 

hemisphere (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). The northern segment of the Archie Carr NWR

borders the AOI, and it has been estimated that 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the U.S. occurs 

there (USDOI, FWS, 2011a). During the 2010 nesting season, there were over 31,000 loggerhead nests in 

Brevard County, where the Archie Carr NWR is located. It is likely that large numbers of sea turtles

would be present in nearshore and inner shelf waters of Brevard County during the nesting season from 

May 1 through October 31. Many adult females linger near the nesting beaches before and between 

nesting events, resting under rocky ledges and outcrops in inner shelf waters for periods of weeks. 

Depending on various factors including (1) the distance of the survey from shore; (2) local factors such as 

seafloor topography and seafloor substrate that may affect the lateral propagation of underwater sound;

and (3) the duration and intensity of survey effort in this area, it is likely that in these cases breeding 

adults, nesting adult females, and hatchlings could be exposed to airgun seismic survey-related sound 

exposures at levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa or greater. Because of these potentially large sound fields in 

shallow water, the exposure of individual turtles to these elevated levels of sound intensity would be 

protracted, even with an underway survey vessel on transect. Potential impacts could include auditory 

injuries to adults and dispersion of hatchlings, though the latter may be somewhat insulated from the most 

harmful components of the propagated sound field because of their relative distributions at or near the sea 

surface. From this analysis, seismic airgun survey impacts on sea turtles would be expected to range from 

minor to moderate. 

The non-airgun HRG surveys would use only electromechanical sources such as boomer, sparker, and 

chirp subbottom profilers; side-scan sonar; and multibeam depth sounders. Acoustic signals from 

electromechanical sources other than the boomer and sparker are not likely to be detectable by sea turtles, 
4-94 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

whose best hearing is mainly below 1,600 Hz (Appendix I). The effects from these sources on sea turtles 

are expected to be negligible, based on the audibility of the source to sea turtles (which may be a function 

of distance). The boomer has an operating frequency range of 200 Hz–16 kHz and so may be audible to 

sea turtles; however, it has very short pulse lengths (120, 150, or 180 μs) and a very low source level, 

with a 180-dB radius of less than 5 m (16 ft) (Appendix C). As discussed in Chapter 2.1.3.2, the HRG 

Survey Protocol requires for sound sources operating at and below 200 kHz the establishment of a 200-m 

radius acoustic exclusion zone around the sound source and monitoring protocols by trained PSOs. This

Protocol also restricts non-airgun HRG surveys within the NARW critical habitat from November 15 to 

April 15 for operations using equipment that operates at frequencies below 30 kHz. Based on the source 

levels of most boomer and sparker equipment and the HRG Survey Protocol, impacts from non-airgun 

HRG surveys using boomer or sparker subbottom profilers on sea turtles are expected to range from 

negligible to minor, based on the distance of the individual sea turtle from the sound pulse.

Vessel and Equipment Noise

G&G activities in all three program areas would generate vessel and equipment noise that could 

disturb sea turtles or contribute to auditory masking. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.2, vessel noise is a 

combination of narrow-band (tonal) and broadband sound (Richardson et al., 1995). Tones typically 

dominate up to about 50 Hz, whereas broadband sounds may extend to 100 kHz. The dominant source of 

noise from vessels is from the propeller operation, including cavitation, singing and propulsion, and the 

intensity of this noise is largely related to ship size and speed. Vessel and equipment noise from G&G 

vessels, including survey and support vessels associated with activities described in the proposed action, 

would produce low levels of noise. Broadband source levels for most small ships (a category that would 

include seismic survey vessels and support vessels for drilling of COST wells or shallow test wells) are 

anticipated to be in the range of 170-180 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m and source levels for smaller boats (a

category that would include survey vessels for renewable energy and marine minerals sites) are in the 

range of 150-170 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995).

Seismic survey vessels conducting 2D and 3D seismic airgun surveys are the largest vessels and 

would account for most of the line miles traveled. Based on the permit applications received by BOEM, 

these seismic airgun and non-airgun HRG surveys could occur anywhere within the AOI. Vessels 

conducting G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy would be smaller and operate mainly at 

specific sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along 

potential cable routes to shore. Similarly, vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for marine 

minerals would be operating mainly at specific borrow sites in water depths less than 30 m (98 ft). 

Survey vessels in nearshore waters are expected to make daily round trips to their shore base, whereas the 

larger seismic vessels can remain offshore for weeks or months.

Other sound sources associated with the proposed activity include drilling-related noises during the 

completion of up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells to be drilled in the Mid- or South 

Atlantic Planning Areas during the time period of the Programmatic EIS. As discussed in 

Chapter 3.5.1.2.2, noise from drilling operations includes strong tonal components at low frequencies 

(<500 Hz), including infrasonic frequencies in at least some cases (Richardson et al., 1995). Machinery 

noise can be continuous or transient, and variable in intensity. Noise levels vary with the type of drilling 

rig and the water depth. Drilling-related noise from jack-up platforms is continuous and generally of very 

low frequencies (near 5 Hz). Sound source levels, however, may range from 119 to 127 dB re 1 μPa at 

nearfield locations. Drilling-related noises from semi-submersible platforms range in frequencies from 

10 to 4,000 Hz, with estimated sound levels of 154 dB re 1 μPa-m. Source levels for drillships have been 

reported to be as high as 191 dB re 1 μPa during drilling. Because of the very low sound frequencies 

produced from jack-up platforms, it is likely that drilling activities from these platforms are inaudible to 

sea turtles. In contrast, it is likely that drilling-related sounds from semi-submersible drilling vessels 

would be audible to sea turtles. It is expected that drilling-related noises would elicit only behavioral 

responses in sea turtles.

The most likely effects of vessel and equipment noise on sea turtles would include behavioral changes 

and possibly auditory masking. Vessel and equipment noise is transitory and generally does not 

propagate at great distances from the vessel, and the source levels are too low to be expected to cause 

death or injuries such as auditory threshold shifts. Based on existing studies on the role of hearing in sea 

turtle ecology, it is unclear whether masking would realistically have any effect on sea turtles. Behavioral 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-95

responses to vessels have been observed but are difficult to attribute exclusively to noise rather than to 

visual or other cues. It is conservative to assume that noise associated with survey vessels may elicit 

behavioral changes in individual sea turtles near these vessels. These behavioral changes may include 

evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in swimming direction and/or speed. This evasive behavior 

is not expected to adversely affect these individuals or the population; impacts would be negligible. 

Drilling-related noises during the completion of COST wells and shallow test wells may be audible to 

sea turtles, particularly if activities utilize semi-submersible platforms. Drilling-related noise is 

continuous, and it is expected that the sound source may elicit behavioral responses in sea turtles that may 

include temporary avoidance or displacement of sea turtles from a very small radius around the drilling 

area. Studies of sea turtles in the proximity of platforms are not conclusive on whether the turtles may 

habituate to the continuous sound source. Therefore, impacts to sea turtles from drilling-related noises 

associated with the proposed activity would be negligible. 

Vessel Traffic

The survey vessels could strike and injure or kill sea turtles. Propeller and collision injuries to turtles 

arising from their interactions with boats and ships are common. From 1997-2005, 14.9 percent of all 

stranded loggerhead turtles in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were documented as having sustained 

some type of propeller or collision injuries. This study did not indicate what proportion of these injuries

was post- or ante-mortem (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). The incidence of propeller wounds 

reported in sea turtles rose from approximately 10 percent in the late 1980’s to a record high of 

20.5 percent in 2004 (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). Documented propeller wounds have the 

highest frequency of occurrence in southeast Florida (Palm Beach through Miami-Dade Counties); during 

some years, as many as 60 percent of the loggerhead strandings found in these areas had propeller wounds 

(USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008). Green turtle recovery off the U.S. west coast has been 

hampered by vessel collisions, especially when turtles are struck by an engaged propeller (USDOC, 

NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1998a). In contrast, vessel collisions are not listed as a current threat to 

leatherback turtle recovery (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1992, 1998b). It is likely that these 

reported injuries to sea turtles were largely caused by collisions with high-speed recreational powerboats 

because of the high volumes of these vessels operating in waters off southeast Florida and in other areas 

of the U.S.

Under the proposed action, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for vessel 

strike avoidance. The guidance would be similar to Joint BOEM-BSEE NTL 2012-G01 (“Vessel Strike 

Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”), which incorporates NMFS “Vessel Strike 

Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners” addressing protected species identification, vessel 

strike avoidance, and injured/dead protected species reporting (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012a). The 

guidance protocols are discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.1. With these mitigation measures in place, survey 

vessels are unlikely to strike sea turtles. Seismic vessels, which account for most of the project-related 

vessel traffic associated with Alternative A activities, survey at a speed of approximately 4.5 kn 

(8.3 km/hr). In addition, waters surrounding survey vessels on survey would be monitored by PSOs for 

the presence of sea turtles. During transit to and from shore bases, seismic vessels and other G&G survey 

vessels are expected to travel at greater speeds. However, these vessel movements would be subject to 

joint BOEM-BSEE guidance for vessel strike avoidance and be required to reduce speed in certain areas 

to comply with the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule.

Sea turtles spend at least 20 to 30 percent of their time at the surface for respiration, basking, feeding, 

orientation, and mating (Lutcavage et al., 1997). Because sea turtles may spend a significant amount of 

their lives submerged, the possibility of a collision between a project-related survey vessel and a sea turtle 

within the AOI may be reduced. In addition, the risk of vessel strikes on sea turtles is expected to be 

minimized because of (1) the guidelines for vessel strike avoidance that would be part of all 

authorizations for shipboard surveys under the proposed action; (2) the typical slow speed of seismic

vessels; and (3) the use of visual observers and/or PSOs to scan the sea surface around survey vessels. 

Any project-related vessel strike with a sea turtle is expected to result in the death of the turtle. However, 

considering the relatively slow operational speed of these vessels, combined with the implementation of 

vessel strike avoidance measures during all operations, vessel strikes are expected to be avoided and 

vessel traffic-related impacts would be negligible. 
4-96 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Aircraft Traffic and Noise

Remote sensing surveys associated with oil and gas exploration and development activities would 

include aeromagnetic surveys (Chapter 3.2.2.6.5) and the installation of COST and shallow test wells 

(Chapter 3.2.2.4). BOEM anticipates that one or two aeromagnetic surveys may be conducted in the 

AOI during the time period covered by the Programmatic EIS. As discussed in detail in Chapter 3.5.1.4, 

the surveys would be conducted by fixed-wing aircraft flying at speeds of about 135 kn (250 km/hr) 

(Reeves, 2005). Most offshore aeromagnetic surveys are flown at altitudes between 61 and 152 m 

(200 and 500 ft). Line spacing varies depending on the objectives, but typical grids are 0.5 by 1.0 mi or 

1.0 by 1.0 mi. It is expected that a typical aeromagnetic survey may require 1-3 months to complete. In 

addition, helicopters are a potential source of aircraft noise during drilling of COST wells and shallow test 

wells. The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells 

would be drilled in the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas during the time period of the Programmatic 

EIS. It is expected that drilling activities would be supported by a helicopter making one round-trip daily 

between the drilling rig and onshore support base. Potential impacts to sea turtles from aircraft 

conducting aircraft traffic include noise and physical (visual) disturbance.

Noises generated by project-related survey aircraft that are directly relevant to sea turtles include both 

airborne sounds to individual turtles on the sea surface and underwater sounds from air-to-water 

transmission from passing aircraft. Both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft generate noise from their 

engines, airframe, and propellers. The dominant tones for both types of aircraft are generally below 

500 Hz (Richardson et al., 1995) and are within the auditory range of all sea turtles (Appendix I). 

Aircraft noise entering the water depends on aircraft altitude, the aspect (direction and angle) of the 

aircraft relative to the receiver, and sea surface conditions. The level and frequency of sounds 

propagating through the water column are affected by water depth and seafloor type (Richardson et al., 

1995). Because of the expected airspeed and these physical variables, noise (including airborne and 

underwater) generated by survey aircraft is expected to be brief in duration.

The physical presence of low-flying aircraft can disturb sea turtles, particularly those on the sea 

surface. Behavioral responses to flying aircraft include diving or rapid changes in swimming speed or 

direction.

Considering the relatively low numbers of aeromagnetic surveys and low number of COST and 

shallow test wells associated with the proposed activity, along with the short duration of potential 

exposure of aircraft–related noise and physical disturbance to sea turtles because of survey airspeed, it is 

expected that potential impacts from this activity would be negligible. 

Trash and Debris

Lost and discarded marine debris, particularly those items made of synthetic materials, is a major 

form of marine pollution (Laist, 1997). Marine debris poses two types of negative impacts to sea turtles: 

(1) entanglement, and (2) ingestion. USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS (2008) note that loggerhead 

turtles have been found entangled in a wide variety of materials, including steel and monofilament line, 

synthetic and natural rope, plastic onion sacks, and discarded plastic netting. From 1997-2005, 

1.6 percent of stranded loggerheads found on Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico beaches were entangled in 

fishing gear. Monofilament line appears to be the principal source of entanglement for loggerheads in 

U.S. waters (0.9%; 1997-2005 average), followed by pot/trap line (0.4%; 1997-2005 average) and fishing 

net (0.3%; 1997-2005 average). Less than 1 percent of stranded sea turtles in 2005 were found entangled 

in other marine debris (NMFS, unpublished data, as cited in USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008).

The G&G survey operations generate trash made of paper, plastic, wood, glass, and metal. Most of 

this trash is associated with galley and offshore food service operations. The discharge of trash and debris

is prohibited (33 CFR §§ 151.51-77) unless it is passed through a comminutor (a machine that breaks up 

solids) and can pass through a 25-mm mesh screen. All other trash and debris must be returned to shore 

for proper disposal with municipal and solid waste. Some personal items, such as hardhats and personal 

flotation devices, are occasionally accidentally lost overboard. However, USCG and USEPA regulations 

require operators to become proactive in avoiding accidental loss of solid waste items by developing 

waste management plans, posting informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using 

special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. In 

addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-97

The guidance would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012). Guidance details are presented in Chapter 2.1.2.2. 

Taking into account the USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance, it is unlikely that 

significant amounts of trash and debris from G&G activities would be released into the marine 

environment, which appreciably reduces the likelihood of sea turtles encountering marine debris from the 

proposed activity. Therefore, debris entanglement and ingestion impacts on sea turtles are expected to be 

negligible. 

Incomplete and Unavailable Information on Sea Turtle Impacts

BOEM concludes that there is incomplete or unavailable information (40 CFR § 1502.22) about sea 

turtles using the AOI with respect to the following: (1) basic biology and their physiology for underwater 

hearing; (2) their susceptibility to underwater noise; (3) alteration of behavior in response to sound; and 

(4) the masking effects of noise in the sea. All of these variables may be relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable adverse impacts on sea turtles that are subject to active acoustic sound sources, i.e., airguns. 

However, what is known about the biology and hearing physiology of representative species (see 

Appendix I), in combination with observations of behavioral response to stimuli, allows inferences and 

conclusions about reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on sea turtles to be understood with an 

adequate degree of certainty. BOEM has therefore determined that data or information on sea turtle

biology, hearing physiology, susceptibility to underwater noise, alteration of behavior in response to 

sound, and the masking effects of noise in the sea identified as incomplete or unavailable is not essential 

to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, including the No Action alternative.

Smaller than marine mammals and more difficult to observe in natural conditions, sea turtles present 

a challenge understanding how underwater noise affects them and how they respond to it. Moreover, a 

more complete knowledge base for all types of sea turtles that use the AOI and that bears on the factors 

listed above is not available and the acquisition of such information cannot be acquired without exorbitant 

cost. Such information certainly cannot be acquired in a time frame to make it available for this 

evaluation. While there will never be complete scientific information on sea turtles that live in OCS 

waters, a body of biological and physiological data and information about the underwater hearing of sea 

turtles and their use of the AOI is available to us. Thus, while we report where limited data and 

insufficient knowledge challenge our ability to understand how and when specific types of sea turtle

species use the AOI and how noise affects them, incomplete or unavailable information does not affect 

our ability to understand and assign impacts or design mitigation strategies. We are able to draw basic 

conclusions despite incomplete or unavailable information, discuss results using available scientifically 

credible information, and apply that information using accepted scientific methodologies including 

acoustic propagation modeling (Appendix D). 

4.2.3.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Sea turtles could be affected by an accidental diesel fuel spill during G&G activities. Effects of 

spilled oil on sea turtles are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1987), Lutcavage et al. (1995, 1997), and 

Milton et al. (2003). Oil, including refined diesel fuel may affect sea turtles through various pathways 

including direct contact, inhalation of the fuel and its volatile components, and ingestion (directly or 

indirectly through the consumption of fouled prey species) (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1987). Several aspects 

of sea turtle biology and behavior place them at risk, including lack of avoidance behavior, indiscriminate 

feeding in convergence zones, and inhalation of large volumes of air before dives (Milton et al., 2003). 

Studies have shown that direct exposure of sensitive tissues (e.g., eyes, nares, other mucous membranes)

and soft tissues to diesel fuel or volatile hydrocarbons may produce irritation and inflammation. Diesel 

fuel can adhere to turtle skin or shells. Turtles surfacing within or near a diesel release would be expected 

to inhale petroleum vapors, causing respiratory stress. Ingested diesel fuel, particularly the lighter 

fractions, can be acutely toxic to sea turtles.

A small, accidental diesel fuel spill from a survey vessel would be expected to disperse quickly in the 

open ocean; small diesel spills (500-5,000 gal) will usually evaporate and disperse within a day or less, 

even in cold water (USDOC, NOAA, 2006). It is assumed that the spilled fuel would rapidly spread to a 

layer of varying thickness and break up into narrow bands or windrows parallel to the wind direction. 

The rate at which the oil spreads would be determined by the prevailing conditions (e.g., temperature, 
4-98 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

water currents, tidal streams, wind speeds). The fuel spill is not expected to result in the death or 

life-threatening injury of individual turtles or hatchlings, or the long-term displacement of adult turtles 

from preferred feeding, breeding, or nesting habitats or migratory routes. It is unlikely that a small diesel 

fuel spill in the ocean would reach turtle nests, which are usually positioned above the high tide line. 

Therefore, potential impacts to sea turtles within the AOI are expected to range from negligible (if the 

fuel does not contact individual turtles) to minor (if individual turtles encounter the dispersed windrows 

of the surface slick).

4.2.3.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario (Chapter 3.6) includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the 

AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; 

(4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range 

complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation, including research 

vessels; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative 

impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. 

The IPFs for these cumulative activities that may affect sea turtles include (1) increased 

anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater noise from sonars, explosives, and other active 

sound sources; (2) discharges of drilling fluid, produced water, and other effluents from drilling rigs; 

(3) the physical presence of offshore structures; (4) vessel collisions with surfaced sea turtles; 

(5) accidental releases of trash and debris; (6) alteration or destruction of preferred nearshore and coastal 

(nesting) habitats because of pipelines, pipeline landfalls, and other coastal construction activities; 

(7) bycatch in fishing gear (Finkbeiner et al., 2011); (8) interactive effects of climate change, including 

impacts on nesting success and the relative sex ratios of hatchlings, and impacts on food sources (marine 

macroalgae and seagrasses, jellyfish, and motile and sessile benthic marine organisms); and (9) a risk of a 

crude oil spill from a well blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other hazardous materials from 

accidents (smaller accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). 

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, six sources of potential impact

to sea turtles have been identified in association with proposed G&G activities, including (1) underwater 

noise; (2) vessel and equipment noise; (3) vessel traffic and collisions; (4) aircraft traffic and noise; 

(5) trash and debris; and (6) accidental fuel spills. Impact analyses presented in Chapter 4.2.3.2

determined that activities projected to occur under Alternative A would result in negligible or minor 

impacts to sea turtles, with the exception of active acoustic sound sources produced off of heavily used 

nesting beaches during the nesting season which could temporarily displace breeding and nesting adult 

turtles and potentially disrupt time-critical activities, a moderate impact. The determination of 

noise-related impacts to sea turtles was made with the assumption that the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol and associated impact mitigation measures would prevent the lethal take of any individual turtle. 

The following analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting 

synergistically with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a 

significant impact.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

Increased levels of marine transportation have been documented along the U.S. Atlantic Coast in 

recent years. It is assumed that underwater noise from vessel traffic and other anthropogenic sources 

within the AOI is increasing. Most ambient underwater noise is broadband, encompassing virtually the 

entire frequency spectrum. Vessel traffic is recognized as a major contributor to anthropogenic ocean 

noise, primarily in the low-frequency bands between 5 and 500 Hz. Naturally occurring noise such as 

spray and bubbles from breaking waves is also a major contributor to ambient noise, primarily in the 

500- to 100,000-Hz range. Noise-related impacts associated with the cumulative activities scenario are 

expected to fall predominantly within the negligible impacts category; localized, short-term minor noise 

impacts might be realized in association with specific military activities (e.g., sonars, explosives); 

however, available mitigation measures (e.g., observation and clearance of safety zones) should minimize 

noise impacts from these active acoustic sources.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-99

Underwater noise from sound sources associated with proposed G&G activities may result in 

negligible, minor, or moderate impacts to sea turtles (Chapter 4.2.3.2). Active acoustic sources, 

including both airgun and electromechanical sources, and vessel and equipment noise from the proposed 

action would contribute to overall ambient noise levels within the AOI. Noise from G&G operations 

would be survey- or activity-based and would occur on a transient and intermittent basis over the period 

of interest. Oil and gas G&G airgun surveys have not been conducted in the AOI in decades. The AFTT 

sound source types and activities are summarized in Chapter 3.6.7. The airgun surveys considered under 

BOEM’s Programmatic EIS represent a class of noise that is similar in ways to certain AFTT sound 

sources, such as explosive testing and exercises involving the firing and detonation of live ordnance, and 

different in others, such as military sonar (e.g., as waveforms, pulse duration, operational frequency, and 

sound energy direction). However, the impacts caused by the sound sources to sea turtles are similar. 

No significant impacts to sea turtles (e.g., long-term or permanent displacement from preferred or 

critical habitats, including nesting habitats; destruction or adverse modification of these habitats; or 

extensive life-threatening injuries or mortalities) have been identified in association with AFTT activities 

and their acoustic sources (USDON, 2012), as outlined in Chapter 3.6.7. From seismic airgun surveys 

there would be a substantial, yet localized, increase in ambient noise levels within a specific portion of the 

AOI during airgun surveys; however, the effects from these activities are expected to be minor. 

The use of the Survey Protocols (including visual monitoring for both seismic airgun surveys and 

non-airgun HRG surveys, and acoustic sound source ramp-up procedures for all surveys using airguns) 

would provide protection to sea turtles that may be present within the acoustic exclusion zone. 

Consequently, no mortalities of listed sea turtles species are expected. However, sea turtles may respond 

to noise outside of the acoustic exclusion zone and alter their behavior.

There are only negligible, localized and short-term noise-related impacts evident from the cumulative 

activities scenario. The G&G-related sound sources are predominantly in the low-frequency bands and 

within sea turtle hearing capabilities. Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol and underwater noise mitigation

monitoring requirements would be implemented prior to and during all seismic survey activities. 

Consequently, the impacts associated with the proposed action would result in a minor incremental 

increase in underwater noise and a negligible incremental increase in impacts to sea turtles under the 

cumulative scenario. 

Vessel Traffic

For the purposes of this analysis, it is expected that recent trends showing increases in marine 

transportation and shipping levels at U.S. east coast ports would continue and that overall vessel traffic

within the AOI would increase during the period of interest. Increases in vessel traffic increase the 

likelihood of vessel-sea turtle interactions, including vessel strikes.

Vessel traffic associated with G&G operations would involve relatively small numbers of oil and gas 

survey-related vessels operating within offshore waters on a transient and intermittent basis over the 

period of interest. Because all sea turtle species are currently listed as endangered or threatened under the 

ESA, any collision between a G&G vessel and an individual sea turtle would result in a major impact. 

However, the probability for G&G survey or support vessel collisions with sea turtles is expected to be 

unlikely, considering the relative time that sea turtles spend submerged, guidelines for vessel strike

avoidance that would be part of all authorizations for shipboard surveys under the proposed action, the 

typical slow speed of seismic vessels, and the use of visual observers and/or PSOs to scan the sea surface 

around survey vessels during mitigation monitoring surveys. Therefore, vessel traffic impacts to sea 

turtles from project activities are expected to be negligible. 

Vessel traffic associated with G&G operations during the period of interest would involve small 

numbers of survey-related vessels operating on a transient and intermittent basis. Because of the low 

number of survey vessels in operation at a given time (relative to overall vessel traffic), the relatively 

slow operating speeds of G&G vessels during a survey, existing vessel strike avoidance regulations, and 

requirements for mitigation monitoring prior to and during all seismic survey activities (Chapter

4.2.3.2.2), the impacts associated with the proposed action would result in a negligible incremental 

increase in the risk of vessel collisions with sea turtles under the cumulative scenario.
4-100 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Aircraft Traffic and Noise

Aircraft traffic over the waters of the AOI includes commercial, private, military, and survey aircraft. 

Generally, aircraft operating at altitudes that may affect sea turtles within the AOI are more concentrated 

over near coastal waters, with the exception of periodic military training operations and surveys 

(e.g., marine mammal and sea turtle surveys). The addition of aeromagnetic survey activities associated 

with the proposed activity is not expected to significantly increase the overall volume of aircraft traffic

within the AOI. It is also expected that impacts associated with aircraft traffic and noise in the AOI are 

negligible, and there would be only a negligible incremental increase in traffic under the cumulative 

scenario.

Trash and Debris

The release of trash and debris into offshore waters potentially may occur from any of the activities 

identified in the cumulative impacts scenario. Vessel operators, crew, and personnel present on offshore 

structures are required to comply with the requirements of Federal regulations, which have implemented 

the requirements of MARPOL 73/78, including Annex V. Required compliance with these regulations 

ensures that the volume of trash and debris that may be intentionally dumped offshore is very limited. 

Impacts to sea turtles within the AOI under Alternative A are expected to be negligible. 

The G&G vessel operations would operate under Federal regulations, which incorporate the 

requirements of MARPOL and Annex V restrictions. In addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys 

would include guidance for marine debris awareness. The guidance would be similar to BSEE’s

NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012). The 

G&G activities conducted under the proposed action would potentially add a very small amount of 

accidentally released trash and debris into offshore waters. Therefore, the accidental release of trash or 

debris during G&G activities would result in a minor incremental increase in impacts to sea turtles from 

trash and debris under the cumulative scenario.

Accidental Fuel Spills 

The cumulative scenario considers a significant volume of overall vessel traffic, particularly around 

ports along the U.S. eastern seaboard. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision or 

grounding with a subsequent loss of fuel into offshore or nearshore waters. The impacts to sea turtles

arising from an accidental fuel spill from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario are expected to 

range from negligible to minor, depending on a series of factors, including whether spilled diesel fuel 

directly contacts individual animals, the quantity of fuel encountered, local sea state and the direction and 

intensity of local surface currents, the degree of weathering to which the fuel has been exposed, and 

duration of contact.

The likelihood of a diesel fuel spill during G&G activities is expected to be remote and the associated 

impacts to sea turtles are expected to range from negligible to minor, depending on a series of factors, 

including whether the oil directly contacts individual turtles, the quantity of fuel encountered, the degree 

of weathering to which the fuel has been exposed, and duration of contact. It is reasonable to assume that 

the potential for fuel spills from vessels involved in the cumulative activities scenario would be 

considerably higher than that expected from vessels associated with activities under the proposed action

because of the relative magnitude of overall vessel activity in the AOI when compared to G&G activities. 

Therefore, the incremental increase in potential for accidental fuel spills arising from vessel collision

during G&G activities would be considered to be extremely small. Based on the low-probability of a 

G&G activity-related fuel spill during the period of interest, the incremental increase in diesel 

spill-related impacts to sea turtles under the cumulative scenario is expected to be negligible. 

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-101

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts on sea turtles from an accidental crude oil spill would vary, depending on 

factors such as geographic location (including distance from shore), time of year, and size of the spill. It 

is expected that impacts from a spill could range from negligible, if no animals were contacted by the 

spilled oil, to moderate or major, if contact resulted in the injury or loss of life to one or more individual 

turtles of any species or age group, or resulted in a substantial disruption of nesting, breeding, or hatchling 

emergence.

Before a proposed exploration well could be drilled in the Atlantic OCS, potential impacts would be 

analyzed in a lease sale EIS and a project-specific EA would be prepared and submitted by the operator. 

In the EA, all potential impacts from a crude oil spill released from an accidental well blowout would be 

examined, including an analysis of site-specific information regarding sea turtle distributions, nesting 

locations and periods, and preferred habitats (e.g., nearshore developmental habitats), as well as 

mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts to sea turtles from drilling activities and potential 

accidental crude oil spills. Considering the low number of potential drilling activities presented in the 

proposed action scenario, the remote probability of an accidental spill, and environmental protections 

analyzed in the EIS and EA process and enforced through permits, including impact avoidance and 

mitigation measures, the incremental increase in oil spill-related impacts to sea turtles from a well 

blowout arising from exploratory drilling operations under the cumulative scenario is expected to be very 

small.

4.2.4. Marine and Coastal Birds

4.2.4.1. Description of the Affected Environment

The Atlantic Coast supports a diverse avifauna and includes a variety of coastal habitats that are 

important to the ecology of coastal and marine bird species. The status, general ecology, general 

distribution, migratory movements, and abundance of these birds are discussed below.

This discussion focuses on three distinct taxonomic and ecological groups: seabirds, waterfowl, and 

shorebirds. Seabirds are defined here as those species that live in the marine environment and feed at sea 

(Schreiber and Burger, 2002). Seabirds may be categorized by the marine zones in which they tend to 

forage. Pelagic birds forage away from the coastal zone and in open ocean and shorebirds forage in 

coastal waters, while other seabirds use both nearshore and pelagic zones (Michel, 2013). Seabirds within 

the AOI include members from five taxonomic orders: Charadriiformes (skuas, jaegers, gulls, terns, 

skimmers, alcids); Gaviiformes (loons); Pelicaniformes (pelicans, frigatebirds, gannets, boobies, 

tropicbirds, cormorants); Podicepiformes (grebes); and Procellariiformes (albatrosses, petrels, 

storm-petrels, fulmars, shearwaters).

Certain waterfowl (Order Anseriformes) taxa commonly termed sea ducks feed and rest within 

coastal (nearshore and inshore) waters outside of their breeding seasons. They typically form large flocks 

and are often observed in large rafts on the sea surface during this period. Diving ducks (Aythyinae) 

include the canvasback, redhead, tufted duck, ring-necked duck, and scaup. They are gregarious and are 

mainly found on fresh water or on estuaries, though species such as the greater scaup become marine 

during the winter. Diving ducks feed on aquatic vegetation, mollusks, and crustaceans.

Shorebirds utilize coastal environments for nesting, feeding, and resting. They are included within 

Order Charadriiformes (along with gulls and terns). The shorebird group consists of four families and 

includes sandpipers, plovers, and stilts.

Within the AOI there are three species listed under the ESA and one candidate species. A discussion 

of the listed species and their status is provided below, followed by a discussion of nonlisted species.

4.2.4.1.1. Threatened and Endangered Species

Under the ESA, there are three threatened and endangered species of marine and coastal birds within 

the AOI: piping plover, roseate tern, and Bermuda petrel (or cahow) (USDOI, FWS, 2011b). In addition, 

there is one “Priority 3” candidate species, the red knot that is proposed for listing as threatened (Federal 

Register, 2013g). Piping plover and red knot are shorebirds that are unlikely to come into contact with

G&G activities. Roseate terns are more likely to come into contact with G&G activities, as they forage 
4-102 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

offshore and feed by plunge-diving, often submerging completely when diving for fish. The Bermuda 

petrel is also known to occur within the AOI but feeds by snatching prey from the sea surface.

Piping Plover

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a small, migratory shorebird that breeds on beaches from 

Newfoundland to North Carolina (and occasionally in South Carolina) and winters along the Atlantic 

Coast from North Carolina south, along the Gulf Coast, and in the Caribbean (USDOI, FWS, 1996; 

Elliot-Smith and Haig, 2004). According to USDOI, FWS (2009), piping plovers that breed on the 

Atlantic Coast belong to the subspecies C. melodus melodus. The Atlantic Coast population is classified 

as threatened, whereas other piping plover populations inhabiting the Northern Great Plains and Great 

Lakes watershed are endangered (USDOI, FWS, 2011c). The Great Lakes piping plover population is the 

smallest, and its wintering population is distributed along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines 

(Stucker and Cuthbert, 2006).

The FWS first designated critical habitat for the wintering population of piping plovers in 142 areas 

along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, 

and Texas on July 10, 2001 (Federal Register, 2001). Critical habitat areas were subsequently revised in 

North Carolina in 2008 (Federal Register, 2008c) and in Texas in 2009 (Federal Register, 2009b). 

Thirty-three percent of these designated critical habitat areas are known to be used by Great Lakes piping 

plovers (Stucker and Cuthbert, 2006).

Piping plovers inhabit coastal sandy beaches and mudflats. They use open, sandy beaches close to 

the primary dune of the barrier islands for breeding, preferring sparsely vegetated open sand, gravel, or 

cobble for a nest site. They feed on marine worms, fly larvae, beetles, insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and 

other small invertebrates. They forage along the wrack zone, or line, where dead or dying seaweed, 

marsh grass, and other debris is left on the upper beach by the high tide (USDOI, FWS, 2011c). 

A key threat to the Atlantic Coast population is habitat loss resulting from shoreline development 

(USDOI, FWS, 1996). Piping plovers are very sensitive to human activities, and disturbances from 

anthropogenic activities can cause the parent birds to abandon their nests. Since the listing of this species 

under the ESA in 1986, the Atlantic Coast piping plover population has increased 234 percent (USDOI, 

FWS, 2009). Although increased abundance has reduced near-term vulnerability to extinction, piping 

plovers remain sparsely distributed across their Atlantic Coast breeding range, and populations are highly 

vulnerable to even small declines in survival rates of adults and fledged juveniles (USDOI, FWS, 2009).

Roseate Tern

The roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) is a worldwide species that is divided into five subspecies. The 

Atlantic subspecies (S. dougallii dougallii) breeds in two discrete areas in the western hemisphere 

(USDOI, FWS, 1998). The northeastern population, which is endangered, breeds from New York north 

to Maine and into adjacent areas of Canada. However, historically this population bred as far south as 

Virginia, and this state is shown as the southern extent by USDOI, FWS (2011d). Northeastern roseate 

terns are thought to migrate through the eastern Caribbean and along the north coast of South America 

and to winter mainly on the east coast of Brazil (USDOI, FWS, 2010a). A second population breeds on 

islands around the Caribbean Sea from the Florida Keys to the Lesser Antilles; this population, which is 

listed as threatened, also occurs along the U.S. southeast coast, where there are occasional breeding 

records from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (USDOI, FWS, 2011d). Reasons for the initial 

listing of the roseate tern included the concentration of the population into a small number of breeding 

sites and to a lesser extent, declines in population (USDOI, FWS, 1998). The most important factor in 

breeding colony loss was predation by herring gulls and/or great black-backed gulls. No critical habitat

has been designated for the roseate tern.

The roseate tern is a medium-sized tern that is primarily pelagic along seacoasts, bays, and estuaries, 

going to land only to nest and roost (Sibley, 2000). They forage offshore and roost in flocks typically 

near tidal inlets in late July to mid-September. Along the Atlantic Coast, they nest on islands on sandy 

beaches, open bare ground, and grassy areas, typically near areas with cover or shelter (NatureServe, 

InfoNatura, 2010).

Roseate terns forage mainly by plunge-diving and contact-dipping (in which the bird’s bill briefly 

contacts the water) or surface-dipping over shallow sandbars, reefs, or schools of predatory fish. They are 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-103

adapted for fast flight and relatively deep diving and often submerge completely when diving for fish 

(USDOI, FWS, 2011d). 

Bermuda Petrel

The Bermuda petrel, or cahow (Pterodroma cahow), is a member of the “gadfly petrel” group 

(Genera Lugensa and Pterodroma), which are highly pelagic birds widespread in tropical and subtropical 

seas (Warham, 1990). The Bermuda petrel is a Bermuda endemic species that breeds on rocky inlets in 

Castle Harbour, Bermuda (October-June) (Warham, 1990; Onley and Scofield, 2007). Its distribution 

outside of the breeding season is poorly known, though the species is probably far-ranging in the North 

Atlantic, following the warm waters on the western edges of the Gulf Stream. There are confirmed 

sightings of Bermuda petrels offshore of North Carolina (Lee, 1984, 1987). The Bermuda petrel and 

other gadfly petrels are usually colonial when breeding but are often solitary at sea, feeding within 

oceanic waters on surface and near-surface prey. They are extremely aerial birds and so rarely land on 

the sea (Warham, 1990). Bermuda petrels feed by snatching food by “dipping” or by scavenging dead or 

dying prey floating on or near the sea surface (Warham, 1990). They and other gadfly petrels are known 

to feed at night primarily on squids, but also on fishes and invertebrates to a lesser degree. Studies on 

other gadfly petrels found that their prey consisted of species associated with deep scattering layers 

(Warham, 1996).

Exploitation of nesting Bermuda petrels by early colonists and predation by introduced mammals 

decimated their numbers. They were initially listed by FWS as endangered in 1970 (USDOI, FWS, 

2011e). Successful conservation efforts have increased the population, but it remains listed as endangered 

(Federal Register, 2007).

4.2.4.1.2. Candidate Species

Candidate species are identified by FWS as species for which sufficient information is available to 

support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a 

proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions (Federal Register, 2006b). There is one shorebird 

species that is currently a candidate species that was proposed for listing as threatened in September 2013, 

the red knot (Federal Register, 2013g). The red knot, like most bird species, is also protected under the 

Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 CFR § 10.13), which is the primary legislation in 

the U.S. established to conserve migratory birds and prohibits the taking, killing, or possessing of 

migratory birds unless permitted by regulation. 

Red Knot

The red knot (Calidris canutus) is a medium-sized shorebird that migrates in large flocks long 

distances between breeding grounds in the mid- and high-arctic areas and wintering grounds in southern 

South America (Harrington, 2001; Morrison et al., 2001b; USDOI, FWS, 2010b; Normandeau 

Associates, Inc., 2011). They migrate northward through the contiguous U.S. in April-June and 

southward in July-October. Delaware Bay is the most important spring migration stopover in the eastern 

U.S. because it is the final stop at which the birds can refuel in preparation for their nonstop leg to the 

Arctic (Clark and Niles, 2000; Harrington, 2001; NatureServe, InfoNatura, 2010; USDOI, FWS, 2010b). 

Approximately 90 percent of the entire population of the red knot can be present in Delaware Bay in a 

single day (USDOI, FWS, 2010b). In addition to the large flocks traditionally found in Delaware Bay, 

flocks of up to 6,000 red knots have been observed from Georgia to Virginia in recent years (USDOI, 

FWS, 2010b).

The red knot was added to the list of candidate species under the ESA (Federal Register, 2006b) in 

September 2006 and was proposed for listing as threatened on September 13, 2013 (Federal Register, 

2013g). Surveys at wintering areas and at Delaware Bay during spring migration indicated a substantial 

decline in the red knot population in recent years (Morrison et al., 2001b; USDOI, FWS, 2010b,c). The 

primary threat to the red knot has been attributed to the reduction in key food resources resulting from 

reductions in horseshoe crabs, which are harvested primarily for use as bait and secondarily to support a 

biomedical industry (Morrison et al., 2004; USDOI, FWS, 2010b,c). Other identified threat factors 

include habitat destruction resulting from beach erosion and various shoreline protection and stabilization 
4-104 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

projects, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, human disturbance, and competition with 

other species for limited food resources.

Along the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern coasts, red knots forage along sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, 

salt marshes, and peat banks (USDOI, FWS, 2010b). In Delaware Bay, they feed primarily on horseshoe 

crab eggs, and the timing of their arrival within the bay typically coincides with the annual peak of the 

horseshoe crab spawning period (USDOI, FWS, 2010b).

4.2.4.1.3. Other Marine and Coastal Birds

Within the AOI, there are numerous marine and coastal bird species present, including both resident 

and migratory species. Resident species are present throughout the year, whereas migratory species may 

be present only during breeding and wintering seasons, or they may only migrate through the AOI.

The other marine and coastal birds present within the AOI include three groups: seabirds, waterfowl, 

and shorebirds, which comprise 18 taxonomic families (Table 4-17). Species within a given taxonomic 

family of birds share common physical and behavioral characteristics that allow these birds to be 

presented in this document by family rather than by individual species. Because of these common 

characteristics, the potential for exposure to G&G activities would be similar for species within a given 

family that share similar behavioral characteristics.

Seabirds

Five taxonomic orders of seabirds (broadly defined as those species that spend a large portion of their 

lives on or over water), including 13 families, are found in both offshore and coastal waters of the AOI 

during their annual cycle. Many species are present throughout the entire AOI and may be classified into 

four categories, according to their spatial and/or temporal residence: summer migrant pelagics, summer 

residents, wintering marine species, or permanent residents. Other species are present in only portions of 

the AOI; some are present only in the southern portion of the area (Florida to Virginia), while others may 

be present only in the northern portion of the area (North Carolina to Delaware) (Peterson, 1980; 

Clapp et al., 1982a,b, 1983).

Seabirds generally feed on localized concentrations of prey in single- or mixed species aggregations. 

Modes of prey acquisition include picking from or diving to the sea surface, plunging below the sea 

surface, and diving from the sea surface to depths of several meters (Shealer, 2002). Species that dive 

below the sea surface may be exposed to underwater noise produced during G&G surveys. Seabird 

families that occur within the AOI that regularly dive below the sea surface include Procellariidae, 

Pelecanoididae, Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Laridae, and Alcidae.

Waterfowl 

Waterfowl that may occur within coastal and inshore waters of the AOI include members of two 

subfamilies: Aythyinae (diving ducks) and Merginae (sea ducks) (Sibley, 2000). Diving ducks include 

the canvasback, redhead, tufted duck, ring-necked duck, and scaup. They are gregarious and are mainly 

found on fresh water or on estuaries, though species such as the greater scaup become marine during the 

winter. Diving ducks feed on aquatic vegetation, mollusks, and crustaceans. Sea ducks that may occur 

within the AOI include eiders, scoters, mergansers, goldeneyes, buffleheads, scaups, long-tailed ducks, 

stifftails, and harlequin ducks. Most sea duck species are essentially marine outside of their breeding 

season. Depending on the species, they feed on fishes, mollusks, and small invertebrates (Sibley, 2000). 

Similar to diving seabirds, sea ducks and some diving ducks may be vulnerable to underwater noise

produced during G&G activities.

Shorebirds

The term shorebird applies to a large group of birds commonly called sandpipers and plovers but also 

includes oystercatchers, avocets, and stilts. Fifty-three species of shorebirds regularly occur in the 

U.S. (Brown et al., 2001). Thirty-five representatives from four shorebird families are present in the AOI 

during their annual cycle (O’Connell et al., 2011). All four families are in one taxonomic order, 

Charadriiformes, and are found primarily along the coastline. Most of these species are present 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-105

throughout the AOI during migration but also remain throughout the breeding and wintering periods, but 

a few species are present only in the Mid-Atlantic (Peterson, 1980; Helmers, 1992). The total number of 

shorebirds present varies by latitude and time of year, e.g., the southern portion of the AOI has higher 

concentrations of spring migrant bird species and wintering species, and the northern portion of the AOI 

has higher numbers of summer/fall migrant species (Helmers, 1992). Recent trend analyses of shorebird 

populations in various parts of the U.S. indicate that many species are declining, including many species 

that are present in the AOI (Morrison et al., 2001a, 2006). The Atlantic Coast beaches and bays have 

high quality environments that are essential to shorebirds as habitat and also provide critical stopover 

areas during migration (Brown et al., 2001).

4.2.4.1.4. Migration

A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that migrates, and lives or reproduces within or 

across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. Migratory birds and their nests 

are protected under the MBTA. Migratory movements of most marine and coastal birds across North 

America are known only in general terms (Harrington and Morrison, 1979). Many North American birds 

seasonally migrate long distances between their northern habitats in the high Arctic, New England, and 

Canada and their southern habitats in Florida and Central and South America, often traveling as far as 

12,000 km (7,457 mi) from breeding to wintering grounds (Helmers, 1992). There are significant species 

differences with regard to the path or shape of the migratory route (Rappole, 1995). Many marine and 

coastal birds as well as terrestrial birds use the Atlantic Flyway, which extends from the offshore waters 

of the Atlantic Coast west to the Allegheny Mountains and then continues across the prairie provinces of 

Canada and the Northwest Territories to the arctic coast of Alaska (Figure 4-17), for migration. The 

coastal route of this flyway originates in the eastern arctic islands and the coast of Greenland and 

generally follows the shoreline along the Atlantic Coast (http://birdnature.com/flyways.html; Brown 

et al., 2001; Morrison et al., 2001b). There is an additional route (not shown in Figure 4-17) termed the 

North Atlantic or Shorebird Route that is exclusively oceanic and passes directly over the Atlantic Ocean 

from Labrador and Nova Scotia to the Lesser Antilles, continuing on to South America (Rappole, 1995). 

This route is followed by thousands of birds, including some shorebirds that nest on the arctic tundra, that 

fly across Canada to the Atlantic Coast and follow this oceanic course to South America (http://

birdnature.com/flyways.html; Morrison et al., 2001b). 

The northern portion of the AOI (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) is extremely important for 

transient shorebirds during both northbound and southbound migrations (Clark and Niles, 2000). During 

migration, stopover areas play a vital role in the accumulation of fat reserves that are needed for the 

substantial amount of energy expended by all species (Brown et al., 2001; McWilliams and Karasov, 

2005). Disturbance along the shoreline where the migrating birds forage can cause additional energy 

requirements for the migrating birds (Helmers, 1992).

4.2.4.1.5. Bird Conservation Regions and Birds of Conservation Concern

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was amended in 1988 to mandate FWS to “identify species, 

subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, 

are likely to become candidates for listing” under the ESA. The FWS prepared a document (USDOI, 

FWS, 2008) to identify birds of conservation concern as an effort to comply with this mandate. The 

overall goal of the document was to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species, in 

addition to those already designated as federally threatened or endangered, that represent the highest 

conservation priorities. The development of the birds of conservation concern took into account three 

distinct geographic scales—North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCRs), FWS Regions, and National (USDOI, FWS, 2008).

The NABCI BCRs were developed by a mapping team comprising members from the U.S., Mexico, 

and Canada to develop a consistent spatial framework for bird conservation for North America. The 

efforts resulted in the establishment of a hierarchical framework of nested ecological units, or BCRs. 

There are three BCRs located within the AOI: 27) Southeastern Coastal Plain, 30) New

England/Mid-Atlantic Coast, and 31) Peninsular Florida (U.S. NABCI Committee, 2000). Tables 25, 28, 

and 29 in USDOI, FWS (2008) include all bird species potentially present in the AOI. Shorebirds are of 
4-106 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

high conservation concern (U.S. NABCI Committee, 2009), and nearly half of the ocean bird species in 

the U.S. are of conservation concern (U.S. NABCI Committee, 2011).

4.2.4.1.6. Important Bird Areas

The Important Bird Area (IBAs) Program was established by the National Audubon Society as a 

global effort to identify and conserve areas that are vital to birds and other biodiversity. The IBAs are 

sites that provide essential habitat for one or more species of bird, and include sites for breeding, 

wintering, and/or migrating birds. By definition (National Audubon Society, 2011), IBAs are sites that 

support

• species of conservation concern (e.g., threatened or endangered species);

• restricted-ranges species (species vulnerable because they are not widely distributed);

• species that are vulnerable because their populations are concentrated in one general 

habitat type or biome; and/or

• species or groups of similar species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds) that are 

vulnerable because they occur at high densities because of their congregatory 

behavior.

The IBA sites designated along the coast, in nearshore waters, or offshore are listed in Table 4-18. 

Three of the North Carolina IBA sites include nearshore waters within the AOI: Outer Banks Inshore 

Ocean, OCS, and Onslow Bay. All of the other IBA sites are located along the coast.

4.2.4.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses the potential impacts of routine activities associated with Alternative A on 

marine and coastal birds. As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1, through preliminary screening of the activities 

and affected resources, IPFs for marine and coastal birds include (1) active acoustic sound sources, (2) 

vessel and equipment noise, (3) vessel traffic, (4) aircraft traffic and noise, and (5) trash and debris (Table 

4-2). Since all G&G survey activities within all three programs are performed using vessels, all activities 

have the potential to impact marine and coastal birds. Active acoustic sound sources including airgun

noise and electromechanical sources have the potential to impact marine and coastal birds that may be 

present in the survey area via sound exposure. Vessel traffic and its associated noise along with 

equipment noise can disrupt and potentially displace marine and coastal birds from the survey area and 

are discussed together. The potential for impacts from the release of trash and debris to marine and 

coastal birds is also discussed below. The accident scenario is presented in detail in Chapter 3.5.2.1 and 

included the accidental fuel spill of between 49.6 and 297.3 gal (or 1.2 and 7.1 bbl) of fuel, which has the 

potential to adversely affect marine and coastal birds.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.1, there are three main groups of marine and coastal birds (seabirds, 

waterfowl, and shorebirds). Marine and coastal bird species of concern include three threatened or 

endangered species that occur within the AOI: piping plover, roseate tern, and Bermuda petrel. In 

addition, there is one “Priority 3” candidate species proposed for listing as threatened, the red knot, 

present in the AOI. In addition, shorebirds are of high conservation concern, while nearly half of the 

ocean bird species in the U.S. are of conservation concern (U.S. NABCI Committee, 2011).

There are three BCRs located within the AOI, including the Southeastern Coastal Plain, the New 

England/Mid-Atlantic Coast, and Peninsular Florida. In addition, IBA sites designated along the coast or 

in nearshore waters include three inshore or offshore North Carolina (i.e., Outer Banks Inshore Ocean, 

OCS, Onslow Bay) (Table 4-18). All of the remaining IBA sites within the AOI are located along the 

coast (Table 4-18). The potential impacts to these regions and areas are addressed below.

4.2.4.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to marine and coastal birds would include those where little to no measurable 

impacts are observed or expected. No mortality or serious injury to any individual marine or coastal bird 

is expected to occur. Negligible impacts would include limited, short-term displacement or disturbance of 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-107

marine or coastal bird species from non-critical habitats and activities, or incidental disruption of 

behavioral patterns or other non-injurious effects to marine or coastal bird species.

Minor impacts to marine and coastal birds would include those that are detectable but are neither 

severe nor extensive. Minor impacts to marine and coastal birds would include short-term displacement 

of any species from preferred feeding, breeding, or nursery grounds or migratory routes (including critical 

habitat for listed species); short-term disruption of behavioral patterns that may adversely affect a marine 

or coastal bird species; or mortality to or life-threatening injury of individuals (other than listed species) 

in small numbers that would not adversely affect the population.

Moderate impacts to marine and coastal birds would be detectable and extensive but not severe. 

Moderate impacts to marine and coastal birds would include limited levels of serious injury or mortality 

to either listed or nonlisted species but in low enough numbers such that the continued viability of the 

population is not threatened. Moderate impacts would also include extended displacement of a coastal 

bird species from preferred feeding, breeding, or nursery grounds or migratory routes (including critical 

habitat for listed species); extensive damage to critical habitat for marine and coastal birds; or extensive 

disruption of behavioral patterns that may adversely affect a marine or coastal bird species. The viability 

or continued existence of affected marine and coastal bird populations would not be threatened, although 

some impacts may be irreversible.

Major impacts to marine and coastal birds would be detectable, extensive, and severe. Major impacts 

to marine and coastal birds would include mortality to or life-threatening injury to individuals of a listed 

(endangered/threatened) species, or mortality to or life-threatening injury to nonlisted species, either of 

which would be in sufficient numbers to adversely affect the population. Major impacts to marine and 

coastal birds would also include mortality to, or permanent (or long-term) displacement of, a coastal bird 

species from preferred feeding, breeding, or nesting grounds or migratory routes (including critical habitat

for listed species) to the extent that the long-term survivability of the species may be adversely affected; 

extensive, long-term damage to critical habitat for marine and coastal birds; or chronic disruption of 

behavioral patterns that may adversely affect a marine or coastal bird species.

4.2.4.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

The primary potential for impact to marine and coastal birds from airguns and other active acoustic

electromechanical sources is to seabirds and waterfowl that dive below the water surface and are exposed 

to underwater noise (Turnpenny and Nedwell, 1994). Among the listed (i.e., threatened, endangered) and 

candidate species proposed for listing, piping plover and red knot are shorebirds that are unlikely to come 

into contact with G&G activities. Roseate terns are more likely to come into contact with G&G activities, 

as they forage offshore and feed by plunge-diving, often submerging completely when diving for fish. 

The Bermuda petrel is also known to occur within the AOI but feeds by snatching prey from the sea 

surface. Only those species that plunge dive are at risk of exposure to active acoustic sound sources since 

seismic pulses are directed downward and are highly attenuated near the surface. In addition, active 

acoustic sound sources such as side-scan sonar and subbottom profilers are highly directive (e.g., 

downward, towards the seafloor), with beam widths as narrow as a few degrees; this directivity and 

narrow beam width also diminishes the risk to bird species other than plunge diving species. Because of 

these factors, other species of seabirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds would not be affected by active 

acoustic sound sources and are not discussed further for this IPF.

Active acoustic sound sources include both airguns and electromechanical sources, each of which 

produce similar impacts to seabirds and waterfowl that dive below the water surface, including the roseate 

tern as well as members of the Alcidae, Gaviidae, Phaethontidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, 

Hydrobatidae, Procellariidae, Podicipediformes, and Anatidae families. Proposed activities under 

Alternative A include the use of airguns as seismic sources during deep penetration seismic airgun 

surveys for oil and gas exploration, and for postlease HRG surveys of oil and gas leases. BOEM does not 

anticipate that airguns would be used for renewable energy site assessment activities or for HRG surveys 

of marine minerals sites. Electromechanical sources would typically be used during HRG surveys for 

renewable energy development and sand source evaluation, where a high-resolution boomer, sparker, or 

chirp subbottom profiler is typically used to delineate near-surface geologic strata and features and 

typically includes single beam and multibeam depth sounders and side-scan sonar. The AUV surveys for 
4-108 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

oil and gas leases include a similar equipment suite. These sources may also be operated simultaneously 

with the airguns during deep penetration seismic airgun surveys.

Birds have a relatively restricted hearing range, from a few hundred hertz to about 10 kHz (Dooling 

and Popper, 2000). However, this hearing range is for airborne noise; there are limited data regarding 

bird hearing range for underwater noise, and there is no evidence that birds use underwater sound.

Airguns have a frequency range from about 10 to 2,000 Hz; however, most of the acoustic energy is 

radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz with zero-to-peak SLs for individual airguns ranging typically 

between 220 and 235 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (~1-6 bar· m), with larger airguns generating higher peak 

pressures than smaller ones (see Appendix D). Airgun pulses are directional, with the majority of the 

sound energy directed towards the seafloor and lower sound energy levels evident lateral to the airgun 

array. Other survey equipment produces higher frequencies. Electromechanical sources usually have one 

or two (sometimes three) main operating frequencies. The frequency ranges for representative sources 

are 200 Hz–16 kHz for the boomer; 100 and 400 kHz for the side-scan sonar; 3.5, 12, and 200 kHz for the 

chirp subbottom profiler; and 240 kHz for the multibeam depth sounder. Broadband source levels for the 

representative electromechanical sources analyzed in this Programmatic EIS range from 212 to 226 dB re 

1 μPa at 1 m (Chapter 3.5.1.1.2). The low-frequency underwater noise generated by airguns would fall 

within the airborne hearing range of birds, as do several types of survey equipment (e.g., subbottom 

profilers), whereas noise generated by other types of survey equipment (e.g., side-scan sonar, depth 

sounders) is outside of their airborne hearing range and should be inaudible to birds. Therefore, if birds 

can hear within the same range for underwater noise as their airborne hearing range, the G&G survey 

activities included in Alternative A that have the potential to impact diving seabirds and waterfowl are 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys for oil and gas exploration, postlease HRG surveys of oil and gas 

leases postlease, HRG surveys for renewable energy, and HRG surveys for marine minerals surveys.

Some seabirds and waterfowl, including members of the families Laridae, Rhyncopidae, Pelicanidae, 

Fregatidae, and Anatidae, either rest on the water surface or shallow-dive for only short durations. Most 

of the seabirds and waterfowl that would be resting on the water surface in the area surrounding the vessel 

would be dispersed; and therefore, would not come into contact with the active acoustic sounds. Many of 

the members of these families of marine and coastal birds that would not be dispersed would not come in 

contact with active acoustic sounds generated from seismic airgun surveys or equipment used for HRG

surveys since they typically rest on the surface. However, those birds that shallow-dive could come into 

contact with active acoustic sounds, but airgun pulses are directional, with the majority of the sound 

energy directed towards the seafloor and lower sound energy levels evident lateral to the airgun array. In 

addition, some of the members of these families (e.g., long-tailed duck) dive to deeper depths (up to 60 m 

[197 ft]) and spend more time submerged than on the surface. These species would come into contact 

with the active acoustic sounds from airguns and HRG equipment; however, airgun pulses are directional, 

with the majority of the sound energy directed towards the seafloor and lower sound energy levels evident 

lateral to the airgun array. The short exposure time and lower sound energy level that these diving birds 

could be exposed to would result in a negligible impact. 

Diving seabirds and waterfowl such as members of the families Alcidae, Gaviidae, Phaethontidae, 

Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Hydrobatidae, Procellariidae, Podicipediformes, and Anatidae could be 

susceptible to active acoustic sounds generated from seismic airgun surveys, especially those species that 

would probably dive rather than fly away from a vessel (e.g., grebes, loons, alcids, and some diving 

ducks). However, seismic pulses are directed downward and highly attenuated near the surface; 

therefore, there is only limited potential for direct impact from the low-frequency noise associated with 

G&G seismic airgun surveys to affect diving birds. In addition, active acoustic sound sources such as 

side-scan sonar and subbottom profilers are highly directive, with beam widths as narrow as few degrees 

or narrower; the ramifications of this directionality include a lower risk of high level exposure to diving 

birds that may forage close to (but lateral to) a seismic vessel.

Investigations into the effects of airguns on seabirds are extremely limited; however, limited studies 

performed by Stemp (1985) and Lacroix et al. (2003) indicated that they did not observe any mortality to 

the several species of seabirds studied when exposed to seismic survey noise; further, they did not 

observe any differences in distribution or abundance of those same species as a result of seismic survey 

activity. Based on the directionality of the sound generated from seismic airgun surveys and 

low-frequency equipment used for non-airgun HRG surveys and the limited study results available, 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-109

mortality or life-threatening injury is not expected and little disruption of behavioral patterns or other 

non-injurious effects would occur, resulting in a negligible impact. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.1.5, there are three BCRs within the AOI that include coastal waters. 

These BCRs are important feeding areas for seabirds and waterfowl. Underwater noise generated from 

active acoustic sound sources (airguns or other survey equipment) would dissipate prior to reaching 

nearshore waters. This noise dissipation, or transmission loss, is the weakening of sound between the 

source and another point in the field. In deepwater operations, this noise spreads in all directions 

(i.e., spherical spreading). In addition, transmission losses are higher in shallow waters (<50 m [164 ft]), 

which results in a smaller potentially affected area (Turnpenny and Nedwell, 1994) resulting in most of 

the underwater noise dissipating prior to reaching the coastal BCRs. Because of the noise produced from 

active acoustic sound sources during seismic airgun surveys or equipment used for non-airgun HRG

surveys, there is the potential of an indirect impact resulting from temporary displacement from small 

portions of the BRCs during survey activities for some prey for the seabirds and waterfowl that use these 

areas. However, if prey species exhibit avoidance of the area in which the survey is performed, it is 

expected to be limited to a very small portion of a bird’s foraging range. Therefore, there is the potential 

for minor, temporary displacement of coastal and marine bird species from a portion of feeding areas 

from noncritical activities during nonmigration seasons, resulting in negligible impacts. However, if 

seismic airgun survey activities and the potential associated temporary displacement of species from a 

portion of preferred feeding areas occurred during bird species migration, then the impact would be 

considered minor. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.1.6, there are three offshore IBAs off the coast of North Carolina. The 

area contained within these IBAs continues offshore into open water where seismic airgun surveys could 

occur. These IBAs are important foraging grounds for many species of marine and coastal birds. 

Because of the noise produced from active acoustic sound sources during seismic airgun surveys, there is 

the potential for an indirect impact of some prey for seabirds and waterfowl that use these areas to be 

temporarily displaced from portions of the IBAs during survey activities. Depending on the season of the 

surveys, this could result in additional energetic requirements for the migrating birds from having to find 

additional or different locations for foraging. However, these IBAs are large areas that range from 30,362

to 245,612 ha (75,026 to 606,921 ac), and it is unlikely that bird prey species would be affected by 

seismic airgun survey activities to a level that would affect foraging success. If prey species exhibit 

avoidance of the area in which the survey is performed, it is expected to be limited to a very small portion 

of a bird’s foraging range. Therefore, there is the potential for minor, temporary displacement of coastal 

and marine bird species from a portion of preferred feeding grounds during migration and minor, 

short-term displacement of marine and coastal bird species from noncritical activities during 

nonmigration seasons, resulting in negligible impacts. However, if G&G activities and the potential 

associated temporary displacement of species from a portion of preferred feeding areas occurred during 

bird species migration, then the impact would be considered minor. 

Vessel and Equipment Noise and Vessel Traffic

The primary potential impacts to marine and coastal birds from vessel traffic and noise are from 

underwater vessel and equipment noise, attraction to vessels and subsequent collision or entanglement, 

disturbance to nesting or roosting, and disturbance to feeding or modified prey abundance (Schwemmer 

et al., 2011). Since all G&G survey activities included in Alternative A are performed from vessels in all 

three programs, with the exception of remote sensing conducted via aircraft and satellites, most survey 

activities have the potential to impact marine and coastal birds from vessel traffic and the associated 

vessel and equipment noise.

Underwater Noise

The sound generated from individual vessels can contribute to overall ambient noise levels in the 

marine environment on variable spatial scales. As stated above, birds have a relatively restricted hearing 

range, from a few hundred hertz to about 10 kHz (Dooling and Popper, 2000) for airborne noise, with few 

data available regarding bird hearing range for underwater noise. Vessel noise is one of the main 

contributors to overall noise in the sea (NRC, 2003a; Jasny et al., 2005). The survey vessels would 

contribute to the overall noise environment by transmitting noise through both air and water. Underwater 
4-110 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

noise produced by vessels is a combination of narrow-band (tonal) and broadband sound. Tones typically 

dominate up to about 50 Hz, whereas broadband sounds may extend to 100 kHz. According to Southall 

(2005) and Richardson et al. (1995), vessel noise typically falls within the range of 100-200 Hz. Noise 

levels dissipate quickly with distance from the vessel. The underwater noise generated from the survey 

vessels would dissipate prior to reaching the coastline and the shore/beach habitats of shorebirds, 

including threatened, endangered, and candidate species proposed for listing as threatened present in the 

AOI (i.e., piping plover, roseate tern, and red knot). Because of the dissipation of underwater noise from 

survey vessels prior to reaching the shore/beach habitat, it is expected that underwater noise would 

produce negligible impacts to shorebird species, including piping plover and red knot.

Some seabirds and waterfowl, including members of the families Laridae, Rhyncopidae, Pelicanidae, 

and Fregatidae, as well as the endangered Bermuda petrel, either rest on the water surface, skim the water 

surface, or shallow-dive for only short durations. Because of these behaviors, members of these families 

would not come in contact with underwater vessel and equipment noise generated from survey vessels, or 

the contact would be for such a short time that it would result in little disruption of behavioral patterns or 

other non-injurious effects. Therefore, impacts to these seabirds and waterfowl (including the Bermuda 

petrel) from vessel and equipment noise would be a negligible. 

Diving seabirds and waterfowl including the roseate tern as well as members of the families Alcidae, 

Gaviidae, Phaethontidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Hydrobatidae, Procellariidae, and Anatidae could 

be susceptible to underwater noise generated from survey vessels and equipment. The number of vessels 

typically involved in a G&G survey can range between one and three, depending on the type of G&G 

survey being performed. This level of vessel activity per survey event is not a significant increase in the 

existing vessel and equipment noise, the vessels are typically moving as slow speeds, and noise levels 

dissipate quickly with distance from the vessel. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.2.2, drillingrelated noise that would be associated with the installation of up to three COST wells and up to five 

shallow test wells associated with oil and gas exploration G&G activities is continuous and generally of 

low frequencies (<500 Hz), including infrasonic frequencies in at least some cases (Richardson et al., 

1995). Machinery noise can be continuous or transient, and variable in intensity. Noise levels vary with 

the type of drilling rig and the water depth. Drilling-related noise from jack-up platforms is continuous, 

and generally of very low frequencies (near 5 Hz). Drilling-related noises from semi-submersible 

platforms range in frequencies from 10 to 4,000 Hz, with estimated sound levels of 154 dB re 1 μPa-m. 

Source levels for drillships have been reported to be as high as 191 dB re 1 μPa during drilling. 

Therefore, most noise from drilling operations would be expected to be within the hearing range of most 

diving seabirds and waterfowl. However, because most of this noise would dissipate quickly with 

distance from the noise source, only a very small area of the AOI would experience vessel and equipment 

noise and potential associated disruption. Therefore, impacts of underwater noise from survey vessels to 

the roseate tern and members of these eight seabird and waterfowl families are expected to be negligible. 

The three BCRs within the AOI are important feeding areas for seabirds and waterfowl. Most of the 

underwater noise generated from survey vessels would dissipate prior to reaching the nearshore waters of 

the BCRs. Impacts to marine and coastal birds using the BCRs are expected to be negligible. 

There are three offshore IBAs off the coast of North Carolina. The area contained within these IBAs 

continues offshore into open water where G&G surveys could occur. These IBAs are important foraging 

grounds for many species of marine and coastal birds. Because of the noise produced from survey 

vessels, there is the potential for the roseate tern and some diving seabirds and waterfowl that use these 

areas to come into contact with survey vessel and equipment noise. However, because of noise 

dissipation, only a very small area of the IBAs would experience vessel and equipment noise. Therefore, 

impacts to seabirds and waterfowl present within offshore IBAs from the underwater noise from survey 

vessels and equipment are expected to be negligible. However, if G&G activities and the associated 

underwater noise occurred during bird species migration, there would be the potential to affect preferred 

feeding grounds. Under such circumstances, the impact would be considered minor for diving seabirds 

and waterfowl.

Vessel Attraction

The number of vessels typically involved in a G&G survey can range between one and three, 

depending on the type of G&G survey being performed (i.e., renewable energy and marine minerals

surveys require a single vessel, oil and gas program surveys could require as many as three vessels). This 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-111

level of vessel traffic is not a significant increase when compared to existing vessel traffic in nearshore or 

offshore waters. In addition, vessels performing surveys are relatively slow-moving (approximately 

4-6 kn [7.4-11.1 km/hr]), which allows for marine and coastal birds to easily move out of the way of 

survey vessels.

The potential for bird strikes on a vessel is not expected to be significant to individual birds or their 

populations. However, a number of seabird species, including members of the Procellariidae, 

Pelicanoididae, Laridae, and Alcidae families, are generally attracted to offshore rigs and vessels. It is 

believed that this attraction is due to light attraction at night (Montevecchi et al., 1999; Wiese et al., 2001; 

Black, 2005; Montevecchi, 2006). However, some birds engage in ship-following as a foraging strategy, 

especially with commercial or recreational fishing vessels. In addition, in an open environment like the 

ocean objects are easy to detect and birds locate vessels easily from long distances and approach to 

investigate. Bird mortality has been documented as a result of light-induced attraction and subsequent 

collision with vessels. Birds exhibiting this behavior are typically alcids and petrels, with bird strikes 

typically occurring at night and occasionally resulting in mortality (Black, 2005). In addition, alcids may 

also dive to escape disturbance, increasing their potential for collision with a vessel or gear in the water. 

Seismic survey equipment (e.g., sound sources, streamers) is typically towed behind the vessels at water 

depths ranging from 1 to 3.5 m (3.3 to 11.5 ft) below the surface. Vessels are also required to have 

down-shielded lighting to minimize the potential attraction of birds. However, even if roseate terns or 

birds within the Procellariidae, Pelicanoididae, and Alcidae families were attracted to the survey vessels 

or dove near a survey vessel, there is a very low potential for either vessel collision or entanglement since 

the vessels are moving relatively slowly (4-6 kn [7.4-11.1 km/hr]) and the gear is towed from 1 to 3.5 m 

(3.3 to 11.5 ft) below the surface. There is no empirical evidence indicating that these types of marine 

and coastal birds could become entangled in seismic survey gear (e.g., hydrophone streamers) in spite of 

the potential for attraction to this gear. Given the low potential for collision or gear entanglement, the 

impacts are not expected to result in mortality or serious injury to individual birds, resulting in a 

negligible impact to these types of seabirds from vessel attraction.

Shorebirds including the piping plover and red knot that reside along the shorelines are not known to 

be attracted to vessels. Therefore, there would not be impacts to shorebirds from vessel attraction. The 

Bermuda petrel is a member of Family Procellariidae, which is highly pelagic, and could be attracted to 

survey vessels offshore. However, as discussed above for other pelagic bird families, there is a low 

potential of impact from vessel collision or gear entanglement; therefore, the impacts are expected to be 

negligible to individual birds and their populations, as the Bermuda petrel is rarely present in the AOI.

Three IBAs that include offshore waters occur off the coast of North Carolina. These IBAs are 

important foraging grounds for many species of marine and coastal birds and often have large populations 

present. However, even if seabirds and waterfowl were attracted to the survey vessels, there is a very low 

potential for either vessel collision or entanglement since the vessels are moving relatively slowly (4-6 kn 

[7.4-11.1 km/hr]) and the gear is towed from 1 to 3.5 m (3.3 to 11.5 ft) below the surface. Given the low 

potential for collision or gear entanglement, impacts are not expected to result in mortality or serious 

injury to individual birds, resulting in a negligible impact to seabirds and waterfowl within the IBAs from 

vessel attraction.

Disturbance to Nesting or Roosting 

There is the potential for impact to marine and coastal birds from the potential disturbance of 

breeding colonies by airborne noise from vessels and equipment (Turnpenny and Nedwell, 1994). Most 

marine and coastal bird species nest and roost along the shore and on coastal islands. Survey vessels for 

nearshore non-airgun HRG projects are expected to make daily round trips to their shore base, whereas 

the larger seismic vessels performing airgun surveys can remain offshore for weeks or months and are 

likely to remain offshore for most of the survey duration. Seismic vessels may be supported by supply 

vessels operating from ports along the Atlantic Coast. For this analysis, five potential support bases or 

shore bases were identified: Norfolk, Virginia; Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; 

Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida.

Vessels could cause a disturbance to breeding birds, with the potential to adversely affect egg and 

nestling mortality, if a vessel approached too close to a breeding colony. The G&G surveys would not 

occur close enough to land to affect marine and coastal bird breeding colonies during survey activities. 

However, survey vessels for nearshore projects would typically transit from a shore base to offshore and 
4-112 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

return daily. The expectation is that this daily vessel transit would occur at one of the shore bases 

identified or at other established ports, which have established transiting routes for ingress and egress in 

the coastal areas and existing vessel traffic. Because of this existing vessel traffic, it is not anticipated 

that marine and coastal birds would roost in adjacent areas, or if they did already roost nearby, the 

addition of G&G-related survey vessels would not significantly increase the existing vessel traffic. In 

addition, noise generated from the survey vessels and equipment would typically dissipate prior to 

reaching the coastline and the nesting habitats of coastal birds. Impacts of airborne vessel and equipment 

noise to nesting or roosting marine and coastal birds would be negligible. 

The piping plover, roseate tern, and red knot are all ground nesters along the shoreline. As discussed 

above, these bird species would not nest in areas that would be disturbed by survey vessels transiting 

from port to offshore or coastal locations; therefore, there would be no impact to the nesting of these 

shorebird species. The Bermuda petrel nests only on small, rocky offshore islets in Castle Harbor, 

Bermuda, and is only occasionally present in the AOI during the non-breeding season; therefore, this 

species would not experience nesting impacts from G&G survey activities.

There are three BCRs within the AOI that include coastal waters. However, as discussed previously, 

G&G surveys would not occur close enough to land to affect marine and coastal bird breeding colonies 

during survey activities, and the potential daily transits for some survey vessels would occur to/from 

established ports, which currently have existing vessel traffic. The addition of G&G-related survey 

vessels would not significantly increase the vessel traffic in these areas. Therefore, impacts of airborne 

vessel and equipment noise to nesting or roosting marine and coastal birds in the BCRs would be 

negligible. 

There are three IBAs that include offshore waters off the coast of North Carolina. The area contained 

within these IBAs continues offshore into open water where G&G survey activities could occur. These 

IBAs include important foraging grounds for many species of marine and coastal birds; however the 

coastal areas of the IBAs where nesting and roosting would take place would not experience the same 

potential impacts from vessel traffic as offshore areas. Therefore, the impact of airborne vessel and 

equipment noise to nesting or roosting marine and coastal birds within IBAs would be negligible. 

However, if a G&G survey were to take place within one of the three IBAs during offshore foraging 

activities, the impact from airborne vessel and equipment noise in these sensitive areas would be of short 

duration and would be minor. 

Disturbance to Feeding or Modified Prey Abundance 

Marine and coastal birds require specialized habitat requirements for feeding (Kushland et al., 2002). 

Survey vessel and equipment noise could cause pelagic bird species, including members of the families 

Laridae, Stercorariidae, Alcidae, Pelicanidae, Phaethontidae, Sulidae, Fregatidae, Hydrobatidae, and 

Procellariidae, to be disturbed by the survey vessel and equipment noise and relocate to alternative areas, 

which could result in a localized, temporary displacement and disruption of feeding. These alternative 

areas may not provide food sources (prey) or habitat requirements similar to that of the original 

(preferred) habitat and could result in additional energetic requirements expended by the birds and 

diminished foraging opportunity. However, it is expected that if these species temporarily moved out of 

the area it would be limited to a very small portion of a bird’s foraging range, and it would be unlikely 

that this temporary relocation because of noise from survey vessels would affect foraging success. 

Impacts to pelagic birds from disturbance associated with vessel and equipment noise would be 

negligible. 

There are several locations within the AOI (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) that are extremely 

important for transient shorebirds during both northbound and southbound migrations (Chapter 4.2.4.1). 

Marine and coastal birds require specialized habitat requirements for nesting and/or feeding, and the IBAs 

include those specialized habitats (Kushland et al., 2002). Possible indirect impacts to marine and coastal 

birds from vessel and equipment noise may include relocation of some prey species, which is primarily 

linked to seasonality. During their annual migrations, a number of marine and coastal birds have very 

specific stopover locations for species-specific foraging to accumulate fat reserves (i.e., red knot in 

Delaware Bay to forage on horseshoe crabs) (Brown et al., 2001; McWilliams and Karasov, 2005; 

USDOI, FWS, 2010b). Because of the noise produced from survey vessels, there is the potential for an 

indirect impact of modified prey abundance and distribution that migrating birds rely on for the 

accumulation of fat reserves to fuel their migration, which could result in additional energetic 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-113

requirements for the migrating birds. However, it is unlikely that bird prey species would be affected by 

survey vessels to a level that would affect foraging success. As noted previously, surveys would not take 

place within coastal nearshore areas or within bays (e.g., Delaware Bay). If prey species exhibit 

avoidance of the area in which a survey is performed, it is expected to be limited to a very small portion 

of a bird’s foraging range and for a limited duration. Therefore, there is the potential for minor, 

temporary displacement of species from a portion of preferred feeding grounds during migration and 

minor, short-term displacement of marine and coastal bird species from non-critical activities during 

nonmigration seasons resulting in minor impacts.

Piping plover, roseate tern, and red knot are shorebirds that feed along the shoreline and would not be 

impacted by vessel and equipment noise. The Bermuda petrel is present in the AOI only in non-breeding 

season; as a member of the Procellariidae family, Bermuda petrel would experience temporary 

displacement. This would be limited to a very small portion of a bird’s foraging range. It is unlikely that 

this temporary relocation resulting from survey vessel noise would affect foraging success of the 

Bermuda petrel.

Aircraft Traffic and Noise

Remote sensing surveys associated with oil and gas exploration and development activities would

include aeromagnetic surveys (Chapter 3.2.2.6.5) and the installation of COST and shallow test wells 

(Chapter 3.2.2.4). BOEM anticipates that one or two aeromagnetic surveys may be conducted in the 

AOI during the time period covered by the Programmatic EIS. As discussed in detail in Chapter 3.5.1.4, 

the surveys would be conducted by fixed-wing aircraft flying at speeds of about 135 kn (250 km/hr) 

(Reeves, 2005). Most offshore aeromagnetic surveys are flown at altitudes between 61 and 152 m (200

and 500 ft). Line spacing varies depending on the objectives, but typical grids are 0.5 by 1.0 mi or 

1.0 by 1.0 mi. It is expected that a typical aeromagnetic survey may require 1-3 months to complete. In 

addition, helicopters are a potential source of aircraft noise during drilling of COST wells and shallow test 

wells. The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells 

would be drilled in the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas during the time period of the Programmatic 

EIS. It is expected that drilling activities would be supported by a helicopter making one round-trip daily 

between the drilling rig and onshore support base. Potential impacts to marine and coastal birds from 

aircraft traffic include noise disturbance and collision. 

Noises generated by project-related survey aircraft that are directly relevant to birds include airborne 

sounds from passing aircraft for both individual birds on the sea surface and birds in flight above the sea 

surface. Both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft generate noise from their engines, airframe, and 

propellers. The dominant tones for both types of aircraft are generally below 500 Hz (Richardson et al., 

1995) and are within the airborne auditory range of birds. Aircraft noise entering the water depends on 

aircraft altitude, the aspect (direction and angle) of the aircraft relative to the receiver, and sea surface 

conditions. The level and frequency of sounds propagating through the water column are affected by 

water depth and seafloor type (Richardson et al., 1995). Because of the expected airspeed (135 kn 

[250 km/hr]), noise generated by survey aircraft is expected to be brief in duration, and birds may return 

to relaxed behavior within 5 min of the overflight (Komenda-Zohnder et al., 2003); however, birds can be 

disturbed up to 1 km away from an aircraft (Efroymson et al., 2000).

The physical presence of low-flying aircraft can disturb marine and coastal birds, including those on 

the sea surface as well as in flight. Behavioral responses to flying aircraft include flushing the sea surface 

into flight or rapid changes in flight speed or direction. These behavioral responses can cause collision

with the survey aircraft. However, Efroymson et al. (2000) reported that the potential for bird collision 

decreases for aircrafts flying at speed greater than 150 km/h. In addition, the FAA recommends that 

aircraft fly at a minimum altitude of 2,000 ft (610 m) or more above ground over noise sensitive areas 

such as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Waterfowl Production Areas, and Wilderness Areas 

(USDOT, FAA, 2004).

Considering the relatively low numbers of aeromagnetic surveys (one to two during the period 

analyzed in this Programmatic EIS) and low number of COST wells and shallow test wells associated 

with the proposed activity, along with the short duration of potential exposure of aircraft–related noise, 

physical disturbance, and potential collision to marine and coastal birds, it is expected that potential 

impacts from this activity would range from negligible to minor. 
4-114 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Trash and Debris

Plastic is found in the surface waters of all of the world’s oceans and poses a potential hazard to most 

marine life, including seabirds through entanglement or ingestion (Laist, 1987). The ingestion of plastic 

by marine and coastal birds can cause obstruction of the gastrointestinal tract, which can result in 

mortality. Plastic ingestion can also include blockage of the intestines and ulceration of the stomach. In 

addition, plastic accumulation in seabirds has also been shown to be correlated with the body burden of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which can cause lowered steroid hormone levels and result in delayed 

ovulation and other reproductive problems (Pierce et al., 2004).

Geological and geophysical survey activities including surveying, sampling, and COST and shallow 

well drilling operations generate trash comprising paper, plastic, wood, glass, and metal. Most trash is 

associated with galley and offshore food service operations. However, over the last several years, 

companies operating offshore have developed and implemented trash and debris reduction and improved 

handling practices to reduce the amount of offshore trash that could potentially be lost into the marine 

environment. These trash management practices include substituting paper and ceramic cups and dishes 

for those made of styrofoam, recycling offshore trash, and transporting and storing supplies and materials 

in bulk containers when feasible and have resulted in a reduction of accidental loss of trash and debris. In 

addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. 

The guidance would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012).

All survey vessels performing work within the U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, which implement MARPOL 73/78. Within MARPOL Annex V, Regulations for the 

Control of Pollution by Garbage from Ships, as implemented by 33 CFR part 151, are regulations 

designed to protect the marine environment from various types of garbage generated on board vessels. 

Therefore, the amount of trash and debris dumped offshore would be expected to be minimal, as only 

accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated, some of which could float on the water surface. 

Therefore, impacts from trash and debris on marine and coastal birds, as generated by survey vessels or 

sampling, shallow or COST well drilling, and other G&G-related activities would be negligible. 

4.2.4.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill ranging from 

1.2 to 7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean surface would disperse and weather. Volatile components of 

the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel used for operation of survey vessels is light and would float on 

the water surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel components to adhere 

to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink. This accidental spill could occur 

either offshore or nearshore, and the marine and coastal bird species affected and the type of effect would 

differ depending on the location of the spill (Wiese and Jones, 2001; Castege et al., 2007). If the accident 

occurred in nearshore waters, including the BCRs, shorebirds including piping plover, roseate tern, and 

red knot; waterfowl; and coastal seabirds such as members of the Laridae, Rhyncopidae, Gaviidae, 

Pelicanidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Fregatidae, and Podicipedidae families could be impacted either directly 

or indirectly. Direct impacts would include physical oiling of individuals. The effects of oil spills on 

coastal and marine birds include the potential of tissue and organ damage from oil ingested during feeding 

and grooming from inhaled oil, and stress that could result in interference with food detection, predator 

avoidance, homing of migratory species, and respiration issues.

Indirect effects could include oiling of nesting and foraging habitats and displacement to secondary 

locations. The potential of a vessel collision occurring is quite low, with the potential for a resultant spill 

even lower. An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel, but such an 

event has a remote probability of occurring, and if it did occur, it is anticipated that because of the 

relatively small spill size (1.2-7.1 bbl) that the area of impact would be a very small portion of the AOI. 

Therefore, an accidental fuel spill within nearshore waters would not be expected to result in significant 

impacts to these types of coastal and marine birds. Impacts to birds from accidents are unlikely; however, 

if they occur, there could be possible impacts on their food supply. However, impacts to shorebirds, 

waterfowl, and seabird species would range from negligible to minor depending on timing and location. 

Since the populations of piping plover, roseate tern, and red knot are already in peril, if an accidental fuel 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-115

spill occurred that affected any of these species or their food supply, there would be a moderate impact to 

these species since birds are very susceptible to oiling impacts. 

If the accidental event occurred in offshore waters, fuel and diesel would float on the water surface. 

There is potential for oceanic and pelagic seabirds such as members of the Alcidae, Sulidae, 

Phaethontidae, Hydrobatidae, and Procellariidae families to be directly and indirectly affected by spilled 

diesel fuel. Impacts would include oiling of plumage and ingestion (resulting from preening). Indirect 

impacts could include oiling of foraging habitats and displacement to secondary locations. The potential 

of a vessel collision occurring is quite low, with the potential for a resultant spill even lower. Because of

the relatively small spill size (1.2-7.1 bbl), the area of impact would be relatively small. Dispersal, 

weathering, and evaporation would reduce the amount of fuel remaining on the sea surface. Impacts to 

oceanic and pelagic birds from a spill incident involving survey vessels within offshore waters would 

range from negligible to minor. However, since populations of Bermuda petrel are already imperiled, if 

an accidental fuel spill occurred that affected the Bermuda petrel, there would be a moderate impact to 

that species since birds are very susceptible to oiling impacts. 

Within IBAs, there is expected to be a greater presence of marine and coastal birds. If the diesel spill 

were to occur within or adjacent to the IBAs, there would be a greater potential for impact to oceanic and 

pelagic birds present in the IBA. Impacts from incidents involving survey vessels within IBAs would 

range from negligible to minor depending on timing and location.

4.2.4.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 and includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change, (2) cumulative noise in the sea, and 

(3) cumulative vessel traffic. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to affect 

marine and coastal birds include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater 

noise from sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources; (2) presence of structures (including 

vessels); (3) accidental releases of trash and marine debris; (4) changes in coastal habitats because of

interactive effects of climate change along with impacts on calcification in plankton, corals, crustaceans, 

and other marine organisms because of ocean acidification; and (5) a risk of a crude oil spill from a well 

blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental 

events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). 

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, six sources of potential impact

to marine and coastal birds have been identified in association with proposed G&G activities, including 

(1) active acoustic sound sources, (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) vessel traffic, (4) aircraft traffic and 

noise, (5) trash and debris, and (6) accidental fuel spills. For example, the presence of structures under 

the cumulative impacts scenario is similar to vessel attraction, as outlined in the G&G activity scenario 

and associated IPFs. Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.4.2.2 and 4.2.4.3 determined that 

activities projected to occur under Alternative A would result in negligible, minor, or moderate impacts 

to marine and coastal birds, depending upon the IPF. The following analysis considers whether those 

incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically with other impact sources from the 

cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

While no long-term noise measurements for the AOI are currently available, there is consensus that 

noise in the world’s oceans has significantly increased over the past several decades. With documented 

increases in marine transportation volumes along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, underwater noise from vessel 

traffic and other anthropogenic sources within the AOI is increasing, with vessel traffic representing a 

major contributor to ambient noise levels, particularly in the low-frequency bands.

Oil and gas G&G airgun surveys have not been conducted in the AOI in decades. Active acoustic 

sound sources, including both airguns and electromechanical sources, and vessel and equipment noise
4-116 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

projected under Alternative A would contribute to ambient noise levels within the AOI. Noise from G&G 

operations would be survey- or activity-based, occurring on a transient and intermittent basis over the 

period of interest. Underwater noise from G&G activities was determined to cause a negligible or minor

impact to marine and coastal birds, depending on the location of the G&G activities (Chapter 4.2.4.2). 

The AFTT sound source types and activities are summarized in Chapter 3.6.7. The airgun surveys 

considered under BOEM’s Programmatic EIS represent a class of noise that is similar in ways to certain 

AFTT sound sources, such as explosive testing and exercises involving the firing and detonation of live 

ordnance, and different in others, such as military sonar (e.g., as waveforms, pulse duration, operational 

frequency, and sound energy direction). However, the impacts caused by the sound sources to marine and 

coastal birds are similar.

The proposed action activities would be a minor incremental increase in the overall level of human 

activity within the AOI, resulting in negligible increases in ambient noise levels within specific portions 

of the AOI during G&G operations; however, no significant impacts to birds have been identified in 

association with AFTT activities and their acoustic sources (USDON, 2012), as outlined in 

Chapter 3.6.7. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2.2, birds have a relatively restricted hearing range, from a few 

hundred hertz to about 10 kHz (Dooling and Popper, 2000) for airborne noise, with few data available 

regarding bird hearing range for underwater noise. There are no studies that provide definitive data that 

marine and coastal birds are affected by underwater noise, but if their airborne hearing range is similar to 

their underwater hearing range, then many sources of underwater noise (mid- or high-frequency) should 

be inaudible to birds. According to Southall (2005), vessel noise typically falls within the range of 

100-200 Hz and noise levels dissipate quickly with distance from the vessel; therefore, based on the 

airborne hearing range of birds, some vessel noise would be below the hearing range of birds and should 

be inaudible to them. The proposed action activities represent a very minor (short-term) incremental 

increase in the overall in the level of human activity and resulting underwater noise within the AOI;

therefore, the impacts associated with the proposed action would result in a negligible incremental 

increase in noise impacts to marine and coastal birds under the cumulative scenario.

Presence of Structures Including Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Cumulative scenario activities including oil and gas exploration, renewable energy, geosequestration, 

and LNG terminals potentially may include the presence of structures within the AOI. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.4.2.2, members of the Procellariidae, Pelicanoididae, and Alcidae families are generally 

attracted to offshore rigs and vessels. It is believed that this attraction is due to light attraction 

(Montevecchi et al., 1999; Wiese et al., 2001; Black, 2005; Montevecchi, 2006). However, some birds 

engage in ship-following as a foraging strategy, especially with commercial or recreational fishing

vessels. In addition, in an open environment like the ocean objects are easy to detect and birds locate 

vessels easily from long distances and approach to investigate. The cumulative scenario could include the 

presence of structures in the AOI, some for short durations (e.g., drill rigs, LNG vessels offloading cargo) 

and others that may be long-term or permanent (e.g., wind turbines) to which members of these marine 

bird families would be attracted. However, during the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS

(2012-2020), is anticipated that there would be drilling of up to three COST wells and up to five shallow 

test wells with associated short-term structures. Currently, there are no geosequestration well installations 

or LNG facilities planned for the AOI, although these activities could potentially occur and would include 

either short- or long-term presence of structures. In addition, there is the potential for the placement of 

long-term or permanent wind turbines within the AOI that could also attract these types of seabirds. 

However, prior to placement of these structures, BOEM would require that a site-specific environmental 

analysis be performed to evaluate the potential impacts to marine and coastal birds. In addition, based on 

the projections of the level of cumulative activities (Chapter 3.6), it is not anticipated that the number of 

either short-term or long-term/permanent structures to be installed would be significant and prior to 

installation, a site-specific evaluation of impacts would be required. The area that these structures would 

encompass would be a very small area of the total AOI. Therefore, with the protective measures of 

requiring a site-specific environmental analysis and the limited number of structures to be placed under 

the cumulative scenario, the limited number of structures anticipated from the proposed action would 

result in a negligible incremental increase in the impact to these marine and coastal birds from the 

presence of structures.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-117

Vessel traffic under the cumulative impacts scenario would originate from many activities, including 

oil and gas exploration and development, marine minerals use, renewable energy development, 

geosequestration, LNG terminals, commercial and recreational fishing, military range complexes and 

civilian space program use, shipping and marine transportation, and dredged material disposal. Shipping 

and marine transportation and commercial and recreational fishing represent the most significant sources 

of traffic, with traffic heavily concentrated in the vicinity of U.S. east coast ports. Helicopter traffic 

would result from oil and gas exploration activities in the cumulative scenario as they are often used for 

transporting personnel to offshore oil rigs. Seventy-two percent of bird strikes with aircraft happened 

within 305 m (1,000 ft) of ground level. Waterfowl and gulls made up 56 percent of the bird-aircraft 

interactions in the U.S. (Nelson, 2009).

Prior to oil and gas exploration operations (e.g., placement of drilling rigs for oil and gas exploration 

or geosequestration), BOEM would require that site-specific information regarding all activities, 

including the use of helicopters, be evaluated for environmental impacts. This evaluation would include 

the associated potential environmental impacts to marine and coastal birds be provided. BOEM would 

use this information to ensure that the impacts to marine and coastal birds are minimized; therefore, 

marine and coastal birds would be protected from impacts from the cumulative scenario activities, and the 

incremental impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Vessel traffic would increase as a result of Alternative A G&G activities. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.4.2.2, marine and coastal birds have the potential for collision with vessels. Based on the 

projected level of G&G activity, impacts to marine and coastal birds from vessel traffic was determined to 

be negligible or minor. Additional vessel traffic from G&G operations under Alternative A would not 

represent a significant increase to existing vessel traffic from cumulative operations within the AOI. 

Therefore, G&G activities would produce only a negligible incremental impact from vessel traffic 

(i.e., presence of structures) to marine and coastal birds under the cumulative scenario.

Trash and Debris

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2.2, impacts from trash and debris on marine and coastal birds, as 

generated by survey vessels, sampling and shallow or COST well drilling activities, and other G&Grelated activities would be negligible. 

G&G survey activities including surveying, sampling, and COST and shallow well drilling operations 

generate trash comprising paper, plastic, wood, glass, and metal. Most trash is associated with galley and 

offshore food service operations. However, over the last several years, companies operating offshore 

have developed and implemented trash and debris reduction and improved handling practices to reduce 

the amount of offshore trash that could potentially be lost into the marine environment. These trash 

management practices include substituting paper and ceramic cups and dishes for those made of 

styrofoam, recycling offshore trash, and transporting and storing supplies and materials in bulk containers 

when feasible and have resulted in a reduction of accidental loss of trash and debris. In addition, all 

authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. The guidance 

would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”) 

(USDOI, BSEE, 2012). These improved practices would also apply to all activities included under the 

cumulative scenario.

All vessels performing work within the U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with Federal 

regulations, which include MARPOL 73/78. Within MARPOL Annex V, Regulations for the Control of 

Pollution by Garbage from Ships, as implemented by 33 CFR part 151, are regulations designed to protect 

the marine environment from various types of garbage generated on board vessels. Therefore, the amount 

of trash and debris dumped offshore would be minimal, as only accidental loss of trash and debris is 

anticipated, some of which could float on the water surface. Therefore, impacts from trash and debris on 

marine and coastal birds, as generated by survey vessels or sampling, shallow or COST well drilling, and 

other G&G-related activities would result in a negligible incremental impact to marine and coastal birds 

under the cumulative scenario.

Accidental Fuel Spills 

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 
4-118 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to marine and coastal birds, would vary depending on the location, 

timing, and size of the spill. Impacts would include physical oiling of individuals and compromising 

feather integrity (Clark, 1984; Leighton, 1993; Fraser et al., 2006; O’Hara and Morandin, 2010). Other 

effects of oil spills on coastal and marine birds include the potential of tissue and organ damage from oil 

ingested during feeding and grooming, stress that could result in impaired reproduction; behavioral 

changes such as nest abandonment and failure to incubate as well as respiration issues from inhaled oil 

(Leighton, 1993; Clark, 1984). However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic OCS, 

impacts would be analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted by an 

operator. Potential impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be examined in 

the EA prepared prior to any wells being drilled. This EA would require site-specific information 

regarding marine and coastal birds and mitigation measures that would be implemented to minimize 

impacts to this resource from drilling activities and a potential accidental crude oil spill. In addition, with 

the required mitigation measures in place and with oversight of these activities by the BSEE, as included 

in CFR Title 30 Chapter II, part 250, an accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well is not 

anticipated; however, a spill still could occur. With these measures in place, the impacts to marine and 

coastal birds from the cumulative activities would range from negligible to moderate, depending on 

location, timing, and size. 

The potential for fuel spills from vessels involved in the cumulative activities scenario is considered 

remote. Fuel and diesel used for operation of support vessels and fishing vessels is light and would float 

on the water surface where is it subjected to weathering, dispersion, and dissolution. Heavier fuels may 

be used in larger commercial vessels involved in marine transportation. 

Under the cumulative activities scenario, an accidental spill could occur either offshore or nearshore, 

and the marine and coastal bird species affected would differ depending on the location and timing of the 

spill. If the accident occurred in nearshore waters, including the BCRs, shorebirds including piping 

plover, roseate tern, and red knot; waterfowl; and coastal seabirds (such as members of the Laridae, 

Rhyncopidae, Gaviidae, Pelicanidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Fregatidae, and Podicipedidae families) could be 

impacted. Impacts would include physical oiling of individuals. The effects of oil spills on coastal and 

marine birds include the potential of tissue and organ damage from oil ingested during feeding and 

grooming from inhaled oil, and stress that could result in interference with food detection, predator 

avoidance, homing of migratory species, and respiration issues. Indirect effects of a spill under the 

cumulative scenario could include oiling of nesting and foraging habitats and displacement to secondary 

locations (Clark, 1984). 

With the use of AIS on large sea-going vessels, radar, and licensing of vessel captains, the potential 

of a vessel collision occurring is quite low, with the potential for a resultant spill even lower. An 

accidental fuel spill from a support or fishing vessel could occur, but such an event has an extremely 

remote possibility of occurring. If an accidental fuel spill did occur, it is anticipated that spill size would 

be relatively small and the area of impact would be a very small portion of the AOI; the type and severity 

of impacts to marine and coastal birds would differ depending on the location and timing of the spill. 

Impacts to the food supply of shorebird, waterfowl, and seabird species would range from negligible to 

minor. However, since the populations of piping plover, roseate tern, and red knot are already in peril, 

any indirect impacts to these species from an accidental fuel spill would result in a moderate impact to 

these species.

If the accidental fuel spill under the cumulative scenario occurred in offshore waters, fuel and diesel 

would float on the water surface. There is potential for oceanic and pelagic seabirds such as members of 

the Alcidae, Sulidae, Phaethontidae, Hydrobatidae, and Procellariidae families to be affected by spilled 

diesel fuel. Impacts would include oiling of plumage and ingestion (resulting from preening). Additional 

impacts could include oiling of foraging habitats and displacement to secondary locations. The potential 

of a vessel collision occurring is quite low, with the potential for a resultant spill even lower. It is 

anticipated that the spill would be relatively small and the resulting area of impact would be relatively 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-119

small; however the type and severity of the impact to marine and coastal birds would differ depending on 

the location and timing of the spill. Dispersal, weathering, and evaporation would reduce the amount of 

fuel remaining on the sea surface. Impacts to oceanic and pelagic birds from a spill incident involving 

vessels under the cumulative scenario operating in offshore waters would range from negligible to minor. 

However, since populations of Bermuda petrel are already imperiled, any impacts from an offshore 

accidental event would result in a moderate impact.

The likelihood of a fuel spill occurring during G&G surveys or other G&G activities is considered to 

be remote (Chapter 4.2.4.3); impacts associated with a small diesel fuel spill are expected to be variable. 

Impacts to shorebirds, waterfowl, and coastal seabirds would range from negligible to minor. Because 

the populations of listed species and candidate species proposed for listing (i.e., piping plover, roseate 

tern, and red knot) are already in peril, any direct and indirect impacts to these species from an accidental 

fuel spill would result in a moderate impact to these species. The G&G activities would only slightly 

increase vessel traffic activity in the AOI and would slightly increase the risk of collision. The G&G 

vessel activities would produce only a negligible incremental increase in impacts to marine and coastal 

birds from a collision-based fuel spill.

4.2.5. Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

4.2.5.1. Description of the Affected Environment

4.2.5.1.1. Fish Resources

The AOI encompasses demersal and pelagic habitats ranging from the shoreline to the open ocean 

that support approximately 600 fish species (Ray et al., 1997; Smith-Vaniz et al., 1999). From a 

geographic perspective, the AOI straddles two broad eco-regions: (1) the MAB from Delaware Bay to 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; and (2) the SAB from Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral, Florida. These 

geographic regions are generally used by scientists and fishery managers as natural biogeographic units, 

and the terminology is followed here even though there is some question regarding the use of these two 

descriptors (Richards, 1999). Fish species distributions vary in species-specific fashion relative to major 

environmental factors such as water depth, salinity, temperature, and habitat type, but when viewed on a 

broad scale they collectively segregate into recognizable multi-species assemblages. This phenomenon 

provides a framework for describing demersal and pelagic fish resources from an area as extensive as the 

AOI.

The following discussion is divided into demersal resources (including hard bottom fishes and soft 

bottom fishes) and pelagic resources (including coastal pelagic fishes, epipelagic fishes, and mesopelagic 

fishes). Within the demersal classes, assemblages are characterized by cross-shelf distribution or 

depth-related patterns. Ichthyoplankton and EFH are discussed after the description of fish assemblages.

Demersal Resources

Demersal Hard Bottom Fishes

Within the AOI, hard bottom generally refers to exposed rock but includes other substrata such as 

coral and artificial structures. Hard bottom features provide structurally complex shelter, feeding 

opportunities, and hydrodynamic benefits for permanent and temporary fish associates. Hard bottom 

supports assemblages of sessile organisms including algae, sponges, octocorals, and stony corals. These 

epibiota contribute smaller scale structure to the larger features, providing habitat for smaller fishes and 

invertebrate prey items for larger fishes (Levin and Hay, 1996; Ross and Quattrini, 2007, 2009; Kendall 

et al., 2009). In addition to providing shelter, hard bottom features influence circulation patterns 

important to individual fishes in feeding, resting, and larval settlement/advection. Hard bottom habitats 

and their associated fish assemblages have been characterized by various depth-related schemes 

(Strushaker, 1969; Miller and Richards, 1980; Grimes et al., 1982; Chester et al., 1984; Sedberry and Van 

Dolah, 1984). For this Programmatic EIS, various schemes were summarized into the following strata: 

inner shelf (0-20 m [0-66 ft]), intermediate shelf (20-75 m [66-246 ft], shelf-edge (75-200 m 

[246-656 ft]), and upper slope strata (200-400 m [656-1,312 ft]). 

In the SAB, hard bottom is distributed across the shelf from shallow nearshore (0-4 m [0-13 ft]) 

waters to the upper slope. In some areas hard bottom features form semi-continuous trends along 
4-120 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

bathymetric contours, and in other areas they exist as more discrete units. Hard bottom also occurs on the 

shelf and slope within the MAB but more sparsely than in the SAB. In the MAB, much of the hard 

bottom found along the shelf edge and upper slope is provided by submarine canyons. Known hard 

bottom occurrence within the AOI is shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4. 

Common families of hard bottom associated fishes within the AOI are moray eels (Muraenidae), 

squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), groupers and sea basses (Serranidae), scorpionfishes (Scorpaenidae), 

grunts (Haemulidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), porgies (Sparidae), wrasses (Labridae), damselfishes 

(Pomacentridae), angelfishes (Pomacanthidae), blennies (Labrisomidae and Blenniidae), and triggerfishes 

(Balistidae). Individual species from these families exhibit differential distributions across the shelf, 

generally depending on water depth.

Nearshore hard bottom falls within the inner shelf assemblage but is restricted to the very southern 

(Florida) portion of the AOI and consists of shore-parallel rocky outcrops in water depths ranging from 

0-4 m (0-13 ft) (Gilmore et al., 1981; CSA International, Inc., 2009). Numerically dominant species 

characterizing this habitat include grunts (Haemulon spp.), porgies (Diplodus spp.), slippery dick 

(Halichoeres bivittatus), damselfishes (Stegastes variabilis), and hairy blenny (Labrisomus nuchipinnis). 

Assemblages found on nearshore hard bottom tend to be numerically dominated by early life stage 

individuals. Some species such as blennies and wrasses utilize this habitat for life, whereas others, 

including grunts and snappers, migrate across the shelf into deeper waters as they mature (Lindeman et 

al., 2000; CSA International, Inc., 2009). Farther out onto the inner shelf, hard bottom stratum species 

typically found are scup (Stenotomus chrysops), sand perch (Diplectrum formosum), tomtate (Haemulon 

aurolineatum), planehead filefish (Stephanolepis hispidus), and bank sea bass (Centropristis ocyurus) 

(Miller and Richards, 1980; Wenner, 1983; Sedberry and Van Dolah, 1984).

Hard bottom outcrops in the intermediate shelf range from fairly level exposed hard bottom

supporting sponges, soft corals, ascidians, and bryozoans to high-relief outcrops (Miller and Richards, 

1980; Sedberry and Van Dolah, 1984). Parker et al. (1983) estimated that 24 percent of the SAB shelf 

area between 27 and 101 m (89 and 331 ft) (9,443 km2 [3,646 mi2

]) is hard bottom habitat. A 

conspicuous hard/live bottom feature on the SAB shelf is Gray’s Reef NMS offshore Georgia; this site 

supports an estimated 200 species of fish and is a popular site for recreational fishing and diving 

(USDOC, ONMS, 2011). SAB intermediate shelf assemblages generally support the highest diversity 

along the cross-shelf gradient with over 120 species known (Powles and Barans, 1980; Grimes et al., 

1982; Wenner, 1983; Chester et al., 1984). Common species are black sea bass (Centropristis striata), 

gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), vermilion snapper 

(Rhomboplites aurorubens), whitebone porgy (Calamus leucosteus), and tomtate. This portion of the 

shelf is influenced by warm Gulf Stream waters that favor the occurrence of tropical species including 

spotfin butterflyfish (Chaetodon ocellatus), reef butterflyfish (C. sedentarius), blue angelfish 

(Holacanthus bermudensis), jackknife fish (Equetus lanceolatus), hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus), 

twospot cardinalfish (Apogon pseudomaculatus), and white grunt (Haemulon plumieri) (Miller and 

Richards, 1980). The Gulf Stream influence also facilitated colonization of the invasive Indo-Pacific red 

lionfish (Pterois volitans) to intermediate hard bottom habitats of the region (Whitfield et al., 2002; 

Meister et al., 2005; Ruiz-Carus et al., 2006).

Shelf-edge reefs consist of rocky ledges, high profile scarps, and flat pavement (Barans and Henry, 

1984) to large thickets of Oculina coral (Koenig et al., 2000; Reed, 2002b; Reed et al., 2006). Although 

many of the species found on intermediate shelf hard bottom may occur on the shelf-edge, deepwater fish 

assemblages are distinguished by the presence of snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), yellowfin bass 

(Anthias nicholsi), wrasse bass (Liopropoma eukrines), greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), yellowtail 

reeffish (Chromis enchrysura), spotfin hogfish (Bodianus pulchellus), bank butterflyfish (Chaetodon 

aya), red hogfish (Decodon puellaris), blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps), red snapper, silk snapper 

(Lutjanus vivanus), and red porgy (Pagrus pagrus). The shelf-edge fish assemblages also exhibit a strong 

tropical component where the Gulf Stream current contributes propagules and ameliorates water 

temperature (Barans and Henry, 1984; Parker and Ross, 1986; Parker and Mays, 1998; Quattrini et al., 

2004; Quattrini and Ross, 2006; Schobernd and Sedberry, 2009).

The most distinctive assemblage along the gradient occurs on hard bottom features of the upper slope 

(Weaver and Sedberry, 2001; Reed et al., 2006; Ross and Quattrini, 2007, 2009; Schobernd and Sedberry, 

2009). Upper slope hard bottom ranges from high-relief rocky outcrops such as the Charleston Bump 

(Popenoe and Manheim, 2001; Wenner and Barans, 2001) to deep coral banks composed of living and 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-121

dead deepwater corals (Reed, 2002b; Reed et al., 2006; Ross and Quattrini, 2007). Deepwater stony 

corals (e.g., Lophelia pertusa), soft corals, tunicates, and sponges colonize rocky ridges, rubble mounds, 

and other underlying substrata to form deep coral bank habitats that are concentrated on the Blake Plateau 

region of the SAB. Individual banks typically rise above the seafloor 80-100 m (262-328 ft) over a 1-km 

(0.6-mi) horizontal distance, with extensive rubble accumulations around their margins (Ross and 

Quattrini, 2007, 2009).

With the exception of scorpionfishes and sea basses, most fish families associated with hard bottom

habitats of the upper slope differ from those described above for the shelf and shelf-edge fishes. 

Hagfishes (Myxinidae), conger eels (Congridae), grenadiers (Macrouridae), morid cods (Moridae), phycid 

hakes (Phycidae), anglerfishes (Chaunacidae and Lophiidae), roughies (Trachichthyidae), and alfonsinos 

(Berycidae) all reside on upper slope hard bottom. A total of 99 fish taxa was documented for deep coral

banks, transitional habitat, and adjacent level bottom on the Blake Plateau within the SAB by Ross and 

Quattrini (2007). Fifty of these species associated exclusively with deep coral banks and were 

numerically dominated by blackfin codling (Laemonema melanurum), roughtip grenadier (Nezumia 

sclerorhynchus), alfonsino (Beryx decadactylus), and blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus). 

Less abundant but frequently occurring only on deep coral banks were swallowtail bass (Anthias woodsi), 

conger eel (Conger oceanicus), and cutthroat eel (Dysomma rugosa). On upper slope hard bottom areas 

(Charleston Bump) with less coral cover, alfonsinos, wreckfish (Polyprion americanus), and Darwin’s 

slimehead (Gephyroberyx darwinii) were commonly observed (Weaver and Sedberry, 2001). Fishes 

residing around these features generally forage away from the structure over adjacent soft bottom or 

depend upon transport of planktonic food across the feature with prevailing currents. Weaver and 

Sedberry (2001) documented that upper slope hard bottom fishes fed upon mesopelagic prey.

Compared with the SAB, MAB hard bottom habitats are sparsely distributed over the shelf and are 

composed of bare rock, gravel, shell hash, and artificial structures rather than limestone outcrops covered 

by algae, sponges, and soft corals (Eklund and Targett, 1990, 1991; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). Fish 

assemblages found on intermediate shelf hard bottom have not been extensively studied, but available 

information indicates that the black sea bass is the single numerically dominant species, followed by 

spotted hake (Urophycis regia), tautog (Tautoga onitis), red hake (Urophycis chuss), conger eel, scup, 

and ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) (Eklund and Targett, 1990, 1991; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). 

On outer shelf (shelf-edge) and upper slope of the MAB, hard bottom is similarly sparse and generally 

occurs within and around the many submarine canyons that intersect the continental slope throughout the 

region. Ichthyofauna of the canyons has not been extensively studied, but the most conspicuous 

inhabitants are cutthroat eels (Synaphobrancus kaupi) and various grenadier species that are not restricted 

to hard bottom habitat in these water depths (Markle and Musick, 1974; Sulak, 1982). In some canyons, 

structured habitat provided by the burrowing action of tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) is utilized 

by other fishes such as conger eel, hakes (Urophycis spp.), and blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus 

dactylopterus) (Grimes et al., 1986).

Demersal Soft Bottom Fishes

Soft bottom or sedimentary habitat covers most of the shelf and upper slope in both the SAB and 

MAB. In the SAB, soft bottom is composed of medium to coarse carbonate sands distributed over an 

extensive continental shelf. In the MAB, sediments are generally quartz with some areas of carbonate 

shell hash. Soft bottom is not always flat or featureless but forms structures at various spatial scales, 

including large shoals, medium sand waves, smaller sand ripples, and finally interstitial space among 

sediment grains (McBride and Moslow, 1991; Auster et al., 2003; Diaz et al., 2003; Slacum et al., 2006; 

Scharf et al., 2006). The presence and form of these features vary with distance from shore, latitude, 

water depth, proximity to river discharge, prevailing currents, and wave energy.

Families of soft bottom demersal fishes commonly occurring on the shelf of the SAB portion of the 

AOI include skates (Rajidae), rays (Dasyatidae, Myliobatidae, and Gymnuridae), snake eels 

(Ophichthidae), searobins (Triglidae), drums and croakers (Sciaenidae), lizardfishes (Synodontidae), sand 

flounders (Paralichthyidae), and tonguefishes (Cynoglossidae). Members of these families (as well as 

others) are distributed widely across the shelf and upper slope, but in most cases individual species are 

represented in different depth-related assemblages. The inner shelf (0-20 m [0-60 ft]) is characterized by 

spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), weakfish (Cynoscion spp.), 

banded drum (Larimus fasciatus), and roughtail stingray (Dasyatis centroura) (Hoese, 1973; Wenner and 
4-122 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Sedberry, 1989). Soft bottom demersal fishes in the AOI include two endangered species, the smalltooth 

sawfish (Pristis pectinata) and the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) (Chapter 4.2.6). Beam trawl 

studies have shown that demersal soft bottom fish assemblages of the SAB include considerable numbers 

of immature individuals (Walsh et al., 2006). Soft bottom demersal assemblages vary with season; many 

species migrate offshore in response to colder inshore water temperatures, whereas others remain inshore 

throughout the year. Intermediate shelf assemblages are characterized by scup, inshore lizardfish 

(Synodus foetens), snakefish (Trachinocephalus myops), dusky flounder (Syacium papillosum), spotted 

hake, and sand perch. Fish assemblages occurring within the intermediate segment of the shelf are 

dynamic and greatly influenced by seasonal changes in water temperatures (Wenner et al., 1979, 1980).

Families characteristic of the continental slope in SAB include hagfishes, catsharks (Scyliorhinidae), 

skates, grenadiers, codlings (Moridae), eelpouts (Zoarcidae), and greeneyes (Chlorophthalmidae). 

Species collected by trawling on the upper slope include spotted hake, Gulf Stream flounder 

(Citharichthys arctifrons), shortnose greeneye (Chlorophthalmus agassizi), lizardfish (Synodus poeyi), 

pygmy argentine (Glossanodon pygmaeus), deepbody boarfish (Antigonia capros), and armored searobin 

(Peristedion gracile) (Wenner et al., 1979, 1980). The upper continental slope area offshore of Cape 

Hatteras is environmentally and faunistically unique (Hecker, 1994; Sulak and Ross, 1996). Fishes found 

in unusual abundances there include wolf eelpout (Lycenchelys verrillii), hagfish (Myxine glutinosa), 

witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), and marlin-spike (Nezumia bairdi). In addition to unusual 

local abundance, individuals of these and other species do not grow to normal size, but remain small; the 

entire assemblage was termed “Lilliputian” by Sulak and Ross (1996). One explanation for this 

phenomenon is related to high input of organic carbon and subsequent decomposition. Because of 

interactions between the slope topography and convergence of several water masses, considerable organic 

matter is deposited over a relatively small area. Decomposition of this organic input causes episodic 

hypoxic conditions that may affect the composition of the assemblage as well as growth of individual 

species.

Soft bottom demersal fish assemblages in the MAB are less diverse than those reported for the SAB. 

Common families contributing to MAB demersal soft bottom assemblages are skates, hakes 

(Merlucciidae, Phycidae), searobins, drums, porgies, and sand flounders. Bottom water temperatures in 

the MAB are much cooler (8-12 oC for the MAB vs. 15-22 oC in the SAB), especially in the winter, and, 

accordingly, species composition is dynamic. When water temperatures increase in the spring, warm 

temperate fishes move into the MAB from southern SAB waters; at the same time, several cold water 

species migrate back to areas north of the MAB. After shelf waters cool during fall and early winter, 

warm temperate species migrate back south and offshore while some of the cold temperate forms move 

into the area (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). Typical warm temperate forms found in the MAB during 

spring and summer include black sea bass, northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus), scup, spotted hake, 

and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982; Colvocoresses and Musick, 

1984; Gabriel, 1992; Mahon et al., 1998; Love and Chase, 2007). Northern or boreal species found in 

MAB waters during winter and spring include goosefish (Lophius americanus), red hake, offshore silver 

hake (Merluccius albidus), and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (Colvocoresses and Musick, 1984). 

There is a cross-shelf pattern in the MAB. Inner shelf species are red hake, silver hake (Merluccius 

bilinearis), northern searobin, summer flounder, and windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus) (Maurer and 

Tinsman, 1980). In intermediate shelf waters, the most common species found are clearnose skate (Raja 

eglanteria), little skate (Leucoraja erinacea), northern searobin, fourspot flounder (Paralichthys 

oblongus), and summer flounder (Love and Chase, 2007). On the slope of the MAB, families represented 

are hagfishes, lantern sharks (Etmopteridae), cutthroat eels (Synaphobranchidae), hakes, grenadiers, 

eelpouts, and scorpionfishes (Markle and Musick, 1974; Sulak, 1982). An important member of the 

upper slope soft bottom assemblage is tilefish, mentioned above regarding its role as a habitat engineer. 

Tilefish occur throughout the AOI in 120-300 m (394-984 ft) water depths (Grossman et al., 1985).

Pelagic Resources

Coastal Pelagic Fishes 

Although coastal pelagic species will associate with structured bottom, they respond primarily to 

water column structure (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen) and circulation (currents, eddies, fronts), 

which vary seasonally and spatially within the AOI. Large-scale influences on water column structure 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-123

and circulation also vary across the shelf. Inner shelf waters are driven primarily by river discharge, 

winds, and tidal action. Intermediate shelf waters are mostly wind driven, whereas shelf-edge and upper 

slope waters (in the SAB) are influenced primarily by the Gulf Stream and its associated eddies and 

upwellings (Lee et al., 1981; Atkinson and Targett, 1983).

The primary coastal pelagic families occurring in the AOI (SAB and MAB) are requiem sharks 

(Carcharhinidae), dogfish sharks (Squalidae), anchovies (Engraulidae), herrings (Clupeidae), mackerels 

(Scombridae), jacks (Carangidae), mullets (Mugilidae), bluefish (Pomatomidae), and cobia 

(Rachycentridae). Coastal pelagic species traverse shelf waters of the AOI throughout the year. Many of 

these species migrate north or south of the AOI during particular seasons.

Large coastal pelagic fishes are generally predatory species such as spiny dogfish, sharks 

(Carcharhinus spp., Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), Spanish 

mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), 

jack crevalle (Caranx hippos), and little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) that are also important fishery 

species (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). These species tend to school, undergo migrations, and are 

generally piscivorous. With the exception of the sharks, these species grow rapidly, mature early, and 

exhibit high fecundity. Smaller coastal pelagic fishes exhibit similar life history characteristics, but the 

species are usually planktivorous. Smaller coastal pelagic fishes occurring in the AOI include herrings 

such as alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring

(Alosa aestivalis), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), Spanish 

sardine (Sardinella aurita), round herring (Etrumeus teres), and Atlantic menhaden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus). These species exhibit two basic migratory patterns: the alewife, American shad, 

and blueback herring are anadromous, migrating from the sea into freshwater rivers to spawn, whereas 

Atlantic herring, thread herring, Spanish sardine, round herring, and Atlantic menhaden spawn in 

continental shelf waters.

Epipelagic Fishes

Epipelagic fishes inhabit the upper 200 m (656 ft) of the water column in oceanic waters beyond the 

continental shelf edge within the AOI, including SAB and MAB subregions. In general, oceanic pelagic 

species associate with the western edge of the Gulf Stream and travel near this edge as they migrate 

through the SAB and MAB subregions. Families of epipelagic fishes include sharks (Lamnidae and 

Sphyrnidae), flyingfishes (Exocoetidae), halfbeaks (Hemiramphidae), oarfishes (Regalecidae and 

Lophotidae), snake mackerels (Gempylidae), jacks (Carangidae), dolphin (Coryphaenidae), pomfrets 

(Bramidae), marlins, sailfish, and spearfish (Istiophoridae), swordfish (Xiphiidae), tunas (Scombridae), 

medusafishes (Centrolophidae), molas (Molidae), and triggerfishes (Balistidae). A number of these 

species, e.g., dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus), sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), white marlin (Kajikia 

albida), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), and tunas, are important to commercial and recreational 

fisheries. All of the epipelagic species are migratory, but species-specific patterns are not well 

understood. Some species such as white marlin are seasonally abundant offshore of Maryland, Virginia, 

and North Carolina. Many of the oceanic species associate with flotsam, which provides forage areas 

and/or nursery refuge. Some species, particularly dolphin, tunas, and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), 

feed upon small fishes attracted to Sargassum and other flotsam (Manooch and Mason, 1984; Morgan 

et al., 1985; Rudershausen et al., 2010). Floating seaweed (Sargassum), jellyfishes, siphonophores, and 

various flotsam attract juvenile and adult epipelagic fishes (Dooley, 1972; Moser et al., 1998; Casazza 

and Ross, 2008). Larger predators forage around flotsam. As many as 80 fish species are closely 

associated with floating Sargassum at some point in their life cycle, but only two spend their entire lives 

there: the sargassumfish (Histrio histrio) and the sargassum pipefish (Syngnathus pelagicus) (Adams, 

1960; Dooley, 1972; Casazza and Ross, 2008). Most fishes associated with Sargassum are temporary 

residents, such as juveniles of species that reside in shelf or coastal waters as adults. However, several 

larger species of recreational or commercial importance, including dolphin, yellowfin tuna (Thunnus 

albacares), blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), Atlantic bonito 

(Sarda sarda), little tunny, and wahoo, feed on the small fishes and invertebrates attracted to Sargassum

(Manooch and Mason, 1984; Morgan et al., 1985; Rudershausen et al., 2010).
4-124 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Mesopelagic Fishes

Below the epipelagic zone, the water column may be layered into mesopelagic (200-1,000 m 

[656-3,280 ft]) and bathypelagic (>1,000 m [3,280 ft]) zones. Taken together, these two zones and their 

inhabitants may be referred to as midwater. In the mesopelagic zone of the AOI, fish assemblages are 

numerically dominated by lanternfishes (Myctophidae), bristlemouths (Gonostomatidae), and 

hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae). Lanternfishes are small silvery fishes that can be extremely abundant, 

often responsible for the deep scattering layer in sonar images of the deep sea. Lanternfishes and other 

mesopelagic fishes spend the daytime in depths of 200-1,000 m (656-3,280 ft) but migrate vertically at 

night into food-rich, near-surface waters. Mesopelagic fishes, while less commonly known, are 

ecologically important because they transfer significant amounts of energy between mesopelagic and 

epipelagic zones over each daily cycle. Lanternfishes are important prey for meso- and epipelagic 

predators (e.g., tunas), upper slope hard bottom fishes (Weaver and Sedberry, 2001), and particularly the 

mesopelagic dragonfishes (Stomiiformes). Gartner et al. (2006) reported large aggregations of 

mesopelagic fishes associating with submarine canyons in the AOI.

In the AOI, the Gulf Stream forms the boundary between two distinct mesopelagic fish assemblages: 

the Slope Water assemblage and the Northern Sargasso Sea assemblage (Backus, 1987). Slope Water 

representatives include predominantly temperate and subpolar-temperate species, whereas Northern 

Sargasso Sea water supports tropical and subtropical species. Slope Water assemblages are numerically 

dominated by glacier lanternfish (Benthosema glaciale), with three other species (Madeira lanternfish 

[Ceratoscopelus maderensis], Bermuda lanternfish [Hygophum hygomii], and Dofleini’s lanternfish 

[Lobianchia dofleini]) accounting for most of the rest. A variety of other mesopelagic fishes occurring in 

Slope Water are broadly distributed in the tropical and subtropical Atlantic and reflect inputs by warm 

core rings from the Gulf Stream (Backus et al., 1977; Backus, 1987). Abundant species in the Northern 

Sargasso Sea assemblage include Warming’s lanternfish (Ceratoscopelus warmingii), half-naked 

hatchetfish (Argyropelecus hemigymnus), Madeira lanternfish, smoothcheek lanternfish (Bolinichthys 

indicus), and Bermuda laternfish. The Gulf Stream tends to have an intermediate assemblage. 

Mesopelagic fishes generally reflect the patterns described for other species groups: the slope of the MAB 

is likely to have a more temperate mesopelagic fish assemblage than the SAB portion of the AOI, which 

is closer to the Gulf Stream and a source of tropical and subtropical species (Backus, 1987).

Deeper dwelling bathypelagic fishes inhabit in the water column at depths greater than 1,000 m 

(3,280 ft). This group is composed of strange, little known species such as snipe eels (Nemichthyidae), 

slimeheads (Trachichyhyidae), deep-sea anglers (Melanocetidae), bigscales (Melamphaidae), and 

whalefishes (Cetomimidae). Most species are capable of producing and emitting light (bioluminescence) 

to aid in communicating in an environment devoid of sunlight.

4.2.5.1.2. Ichthyoplankton

With the exception of sharks, rays, and anadromous species, most of the fishes described above 

produce abundant dispersive eggs and larvae that are broadcast into the water column, where currents, 

tides, and other mechanisms transport or retain these propagules over a variety of spatial scales. Surveys 

of eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton) within the AOI reveal a great diversity and density of early life 

stages in the water column (e.g., Berrien et al., 1978; Morse et al., 1987).

Pelagic eggs and larvae found in the SAB are products of spawning mainly from warm temperate and 

tropical regions (Powles and Stender, 1976; Powell and Robbins, 1994; Hare et al., 2001; Marancik et al., 

2005; Sedberry et al., 2006). The warm temperate species are spawned within the SAB, whereas the 

tropical eggs and larvae are carried into the area from more southerly spawning locations. Several of the 

region's commercially important species, including Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic croaker, spot, summer 

flounder, and southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), migrate from nearshore shelf waters to the 

shelf edge to spawn (Miller et al., 1984; Taylor et al., 2010). The larvae of these species are transported 

back across the shelf and eventually into inshore/estuarine nursery areas.

Within the SAB, fish eggs and larvae are generally distributed in an onshore/offshore pattern 

(Powles and Stender, 1976). Depending on the position of the Gulf Stream front, the ichthyoplankton in 

the SAB will form a mixture of slope and shelf/slope groups. The slope group is typified by lanternfish 

throughout the year. During spring, mackerel (Scombridae) larvae reach peak abundance. Members of 

the slope group at other times of the year include inshore species such as gobies, wrasses (Labridae), and 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-125

flounders (Bothidae and Paralichthyidae). The shelf/slope group includes fishes such as lefteye flounders

(Bothidae), jacks, mullets (Mugil spp.), bluefish, filefish (Monacanthidae), goatfish (Mullidae), and sea 

basses (Serranidae); several of these are economically important species. The composition and 

abundance of ichthyoplankton at any particular time will depend upon the position of the Gulf Stream 

front (Govoni, 1993).

Fish eggs and larvae found in the MAB come from warm temperate, cold temperate, and boreal 

regions (Doyle et al., 1993). In general, the most abundant fish eggs and larvae found during winter 

months are those of cold temperate species originating in more northerly waters. During spring, summer, 

and fall months, ichthyoplankton is dominated by warm temperate species originating from more 

southerly waters.

Within the MAB, fish eggs and larvae are generally distributed in an onshore/offshore pattern 

including inner shelf, outer shelf, and slope/oceanic groups (Doyle et al., 1993; Hare et al., 2001). Factors 

such as temperature, salinity, frontal boundary positions, and locations of adult spawning sites contribute 

to the formation and maintenance of these groups (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982; Cowen et al., 1993). 

Depending on the position of the Gulf Stream front, the outer shelf or slope/oceanic groups would be the 

most likely larvae occurring along the slope. Lanternfishes (Benthosema glaciale and Ceratoscopelus 

maderensis) define the slope/oceanic group (Doyle et al., 1993). B. glaciale reaches peak abundance in 

winter and spring, whereas C. maderensis is most abundant in spring, summer, and fall. The 

slope/oceanic group also includes shelf species whose distribution extends somewhat into the 

slope/oceanic areas. In spring, Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) larvae are abundant, and in 

summer, silver hake and some flatfish larvae occur with C. maderensis. The outer-shelf group includes 

witch flounder, silver hake, Atlantic bonito, cusk-eels (Ophidiidae), and species from more southerly 

waters such as razorfish (Xyrichtys spp.), lefteye flounders, and gobies (Gobiidae) (Hare and Cowen, 

1991; Cowen et al., 1993; Doyle et al., 1993).

4.2.5.1.3. Essential Fish Habitat and Managed Species

The Magnuson-Stevens FCMA (16 U.S.C. § 1801-1882) established regional FMCs and mandated 

that FMPs be developed to responsibly manage exploited fish and invertebrate species in U.S. Federal 

waters. When Congress reauthorized this Act in 1996 as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), several 

reforms and changes were made. One change was to charge NMFS with designating and conserving EFH

for species managed under existing FMPs. This is intended to minimize, to the extent practicable, any 

adverse effects on habitat caused by fishing or non-fishing activities, and to identify other actions to 

encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.

EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or 

growth to maturity” [16 U.S.C. § 1801(10)]. The EFH final rule summarizing EFH regulation (50 CFR 

part 600) outlines additional interpretation of the EFH definition. Waters, as defined previously, include 

“aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and 

may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate.” Substrate includes “sediment, 

hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities.” Necessary is 

defined as “the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a 

healthy ecosystem.” “Fish” includes “finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal 

and plant life other than marine mammals and birds,” whereas “spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to 

maturity” covers the complete life cycle of those species of interest.

The AOI covers a broad geographic and bathymetric region that features a dynamic mix of fishery 

species managed by four different Federal entities. The two primary FMCs responsible for fisheries and 

habitats in Federal waters of AOI are the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the 

SAFMC. These two councils manage the MAB and SAB regions, respectively. Because of regular 

seasonal movement of additional species into the AOI from New England waters, species under the 

jurisdiction of another management council, the NEFMC, were included in this review. Each of these 

FMCs has developed EFH descriptions in either separate documents or as amendments to existing FMPs 

(MAFMC, 1998a,b,c; NEFMC, 1998a,b; SAFMC, 1998; MAFMC and NEFMC, 1999). In addition to 

the FMPs prepared by these councils, HMS (tunas, billfishes, sharks, and swordfish) prevalent in the AOI 

are managed by the Highly Migratory Species Management Unit, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS. 

This group prepared an FMP for HMS that was updated in 2009 and includes descriptions of EFH for 

sharks, swordfish, and tunas (USDOC, NMFS, 2009a).
4-126 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Within the EFH designated for various species, particular areas termed HAPCs are also identified. 

HAPCs either play important roles in the life history (e.g., spawning areas) of federally managed fish 

species or are especially vulnerable to degradation from fishing or other human activities.

Species or species groups managed by the SAFMC, MAFMC, NEFMC, and NMFS found within the 

AOI are listed in Table 4-19. Species listed in the table were selected based on examination of the FMPs 

and with the assistance of NOAA’s essential fish habitat mapper (http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/

protection/efh/efhmapper/index.html). 

Description of EFH for managed plant, invertebrate, and fish species is organized similarly to the 

information presented above on fish resources into broad habitat classes of demersal and pelagic. 

Managed species and species groups for demersal and pelagic habitats are listed in Table 4-19 for each 

management council or NMFS.

Members of these groups occur in the AOI for at least a portion of their life cycles. The following 

accounts briefly describe the EFH and HAPCs for these species and life stages as outlined by the 

management entities.

Demersal Resources

Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats

For the SAB portion of the AOI, EFH for ahermatypic corals, black corals (Antipatharia), octocorals, 

and sea pens is as follows:

• ahermatypic stony corals – defined hard substrate in subtidal to outer shelf depths 

throughout the management area.

• black corals (Antipatharia) – rough, hard, exposed, stable substrate, offshore in high 

salinity (30-35 ppt) waters in depths exceeding 18 m (54 ft), not restricted by light 

penetration on the outer shelf throughout the SAB.

• octocorals, excepting the order Pennatulacea (sea pens and sea pansies) – rough, 

hard, exposed, stable substrate in subtidal to outer shelf depths within a wide range of 

salinity and light penetration throughout the SAB.

• Pennatulacea (sea pens and sea pansies) – includes muddy, silty bottoms in subtidal 

to outer shelf depths within a wide range of salinity and light penetration throughout 

the SAB.

The HAPCs for coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitats of the AOI include the following: 

The 10-Fathom Ledge, Big Rock, and The Point (North Carolina); Hurl Rocks and the Charleston Bump 

(South Carolina); Gray’s Reef NMS (Georgia); the Phragmatopoma (tube worm) reefs off the central east 

coast of Florida; Oculina Bank off the east coast of Florida from Ft. Pierce to Cape Canaveral; and 

nearshore (0-4 m; 0-12 ft) hard bottom off the east coast of Florida from Cape Canaveral to Broward 

County (SAFMC, 1998).

Spiny Lobster

Spiny lobster EFH consists of hard bottom, coral reefs, crevices, cracks, and other structured bottom 

in shelf waters of the AOI from Cape Canaveral to Cape Fear, North Carolina. The Gulf Stream provides 

an important mode of transport for early life history stages of spiny lobster. No HAPCs for spiny lobster 

were identified within the AOI.

Hard Bottom Fishes (Snapper-Grouper Complex) 

The reef fish (snapper-grouper) management unit consists of 73 species from 10 families. Only the 

most important species of snapper, grouper, porgy, temperate bass, and tilefish families are listed in 

Table 4-20. Families not listed in the table are grunts, jacks, spadefishes, wrasses, and triggerfishes. The 

EFH for adults of this species group consists of hard bottom features such as live bottom, artificial reefs, 

coral reefs, and rocky outcrops. These features extend from nearshore out to at least 800-m (2,625-ft) 

water depths on the upper continental slope (SAFMC, 1998). Many of the early life stage individuals of 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-127

reef fishes such as gag grouper, gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus), lane snapper (L. synagris), and scup 

have EFH in inshore waters not present in the AOI. Although the fisheries and adult habitat of these 

species exist primarily within the SAB portion of the AOI, three species (black sea bass, scup, and 

tilefish) are also managed by the MAFMC and have EFH in the MAB as well (SAFMC, 1998; MAFMC, 

2008a).

The HAPCs for the reef fish species complex that exist in the AOI include mangrove habitat, seagrass 

habitat, oyster/shell habitat, and all coastal inlets (SAFMC, 1998). Areas that meet the criteria for 

EFH-HAPCs for species in the snapper-grouper management unit include medium- to high-profile 

offshore hard bottoms where spawning normally occurs; localities of known or likely periodic spawning 

aggregations; nearshore hard bottom areas; The Point, Ten Fathom Ledge, and Big Rock 

(North Carolina); Charleston Bump (South Carolina); mangrove habitat; seagrass habitat; oyster/shell 

habitat; all coastal inlets; all State-designated nursery habitats of particular importance to 

snappers-groupers (e.g., primary and secondary nursery areas designated in North Carolina); pelagic and 

benthic Sargassum; Hoyt Hills for wreckfish; the Oculina Bank HAPC; all hermatypic coral habitats and 

reefs; manganese outcroppings on the Blake Plateau; and Council-designated Artificial Reef Special 

Management Zones (SAFMC, 1998).

Mollusks 

Four bivalve mollusk species managed by Federal management agencies occur in the AOI: surfclam 

(Spisula solidissima), ocean quahog (Arctica islandica), sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus), and 

calico scallop (Argopecten gibbus). The surfclam and ocean quahog occur in shelf waters of the MAB 

portion of the AOI. The sea scallop is most abundant north of the AOI, but the southern portion of its 

distribution extends into the MAB (NEFMC, 1998a). Table 4-21 gives EFH information for these 

species in the AOI. The calico scallop occurs in clusters in the SAB primarily offshore of Cape 

Canaveral, Florida; Cape Fear, North Carolina; and off the Georgia-South Carolina border (SAFMC, 

1998). HAPCs were not designated for any of the mollusk species mentioned above.

Shrimps

Penaeid shrimps managed by the SAFMC and occurring in the AOI are brown shrimp 

(Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (F. duorarum), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). Other 

members of this management unit important to fisheries of the region include rock shrimp 

(Sicyonia brevirostris) and royal red shrimp (Pleoticus robustus). Table 4-21 presents EFH information 

for life stages of these species within the AOI.

The HAPCs for penaeid, rock, and royal red shrimps include all State-designated habitat of particular 

importance to shrimp and State-designated overwintering areas.

Crabs 

Two deep-dwelling crabs of the family Geryonidae occur in the AOI. The red crab 

(Chaceon quinquedens) is most abundant in the MAB and north (NEFMC, 2002), whereas the golden 

crab (Chaceon fenneri) is most abundant in the SAB (SAFMC, 1998). Table 4-21 provides EFH

information for life stages of the red and golden crabs for the AOI.

The HAPCs have not been identified for red crab (NEFMC, 2002) or golden crab (SAFMC, 1998).

Pelagic Resources

Sargassum 

The brown alga Sargassum floats at the sea surface, often forming large mats. These accumulations 

attract numerous small fishes and invertebrates that become mobile epipelagic assemblages. Larger 

fishes, particularly dolphin, tunas, billfishes, and wahoo, associate with Sargassum mats in search of prey 

and possibly shelter (SAFMC, 1998, 2002, 2003). Some fish families, including jacks, triggerfishes 

(Balistidae), filefishes (Monacanthidae), and drift fishes (Stromateidae), use Sargassum as nursery 

habitat. The EFH and HAPC for Sargassum is simply the shelf waters and the Gulf Stream to the limits 

of the EEZ.
4-128 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Squids

Two squid taxa support fisheries in the MAB portion of the AOI: long-finned squid (Loligo pealei) 

and shortfin squid (Illex spp.), a complex of closely related species nominally referred to as

Illex illecebrosus. Long-finned squid, a member of the family Loliginidae, occurs primarily in shelf and 

shelf edge waters. Adults move offshore in fall and remain there until April, when adults and young 

migrate back into shelf waters for the summer (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). Spawning reportedly 

occurs year-round with major peaks in spring (April and May) and fall (August and September). Eggs are 

attached to hard surfaces and vegetation (NEFMC, 1998a). The shortfin squid belongs to Family 

Ommastrephidae, a family consisting entirely of oceanic species. It is distributed accordingly in oceanic 

and shelf-edge waters of the MAB to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). It 

migrates into shallower waters (10-50 m [33-164 ft]) during summer months; in late fall it moves south 

and offshore in the area from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980).

Coastal Pelagic Fishes 

The coastal pelagic category is used formally by the SAFMC to define a management unit including 

cobia, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, and little tunny (SAFMC, 1998). Other managed species that 

inhabit the coastal pelagic habitat of the AOI include coastal sharks (small and large), managed by 

USDOC, NMFS (2009a); spiny dogfish, managed by MAFMC and NEFMC (1999); and Atlantic herring 

(Clupea harengus), Atlantic mackerel, butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), and bluefish, managed by 

MAFMC (1998c, 2008b). Specific EFH information for these species is presented in Table 4-22. 

The HAPCs designated for the SAFMC coastal pelagic species group within the AOI include sandy 

shoals of Cape Lookout, Cape Fear, and mid-Cape Hatteras, The Point, The Ten-fathom Ledge, and Big 

Rock (North Carolina); The Charleston Bump and Hurl Rocks (South Carolina); and nearshore hard 

bottom (Florida) (SAFMC, 1998). For the species managed by the MAFMC and NMFS, no HAPCs have 

been designated.

There are five small coastal sharks with EFH in the AOI: Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumeril), 

bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo), Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), blacknose 

shark (Carcharhinus acronotus), and finetooth shark (C. isodon). Table 4-23 provides details for each 

species and life stage.

Large coastal sharks are those species commonly occurring in shelf waters. Seventeen large coastal 

shark species including basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran), 

white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus), bull (Carcharhinus leucas), 

lemon (Negaprion brevirostris), tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), and sand tiger (Carcharias taurus) occur in 

the AOI (Table 4-24) (USDOC, NMFS, 2009a). The HAPCs were not identified for small or large 

coastal sharks (USDOC, NMFS, 2009a).

Highly Migratory Species (Epipelagic Species)

Many HMS including dolphin, wahoo, tunas (Thunnus spp. and Katsuwonus pelamis), swordfish 

(Xiphias gladius), and billfishes (Istiophoridae) occur in the AOI because of the proximity of the Gulf 

Stream and the extensive expanse of open ocean beyond the shelf edge. Swordfish and Atlantic bluefin 

tuna (Thunnus thynnus) migrate along the outer shelf and into New England waters (USDOC, NMFS, 

2009a). Other tunas and billfishes including sailfish, blue marlin, longbill spearfish (Tetrapturus 

pfluegeri), roundscale spearfish (T. georgei), and white marlin also occur in the AOI (Table 4-25), in 

addition to several pelagic shark species (Table 4-26). 

4.2.5.1.4. Summary of Fish and Invertebrate Hearing Capabilities 

A brief overview of fish and invertebrate hearing capabilities is presented in the following synthesis. 

The bulk of the information pertains to fishes, reflecting the general lack of information on sound and its 

effects on invertebrates. For more information, see Appendix J. 

Sound plays a major role in the lives of all fishes (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay and Popper, 2000). 

This is particularly the case since sound travels much farther in water than other potential signals, and it is 

not impeded by darkness, currents, or objects in the open water environment. Thus, fishes can glean a 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-129

great deal of information about biotic (living) and abiotic (environmental) sources and get a good “image” 

of the environment to a very substantial distance from the animal (e.g., Fay and Popper, 2000; Popper 

et al., 2003; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010).

In addition to listening to the overall environment and being able to detect sounds of biological 

relevance (e.g., the presence of a reef, the sounds produced by swimming predators), many species of 

bony fishes (but not elasmobranchs) communicate with sounds and use sounds in a wide range of 

behaviors including, but not limited to, mating and territorial interactions (see Zelick et al. [1999] for 

review). Consequently, anything that impedes the ability of a fish to hear biologically relevant sounds 

such as those produced by anthropogenic sound sources could interfere with the normal behaviors and 

even the survival of individuals, populations, or a species. Many more-detailed discussions of all aspects 

of fish bioacoustics can be found in Fay and Megala-Simmons (1999), Zelick et al. (1999), Popper et al. 

(2003), and Webb et al. (2008). Broad discussions of interactions of anthropogenic sounds and fishes can 

be found in Popper and Hastings (2009a,b) and Popper and Hawkins (2011).

Besides being able to detect sounds, a critical role for hearing is to be able to discriminate between 

different sounds (e.g., frequency and intensity), detect biologically relevant sounds in the presence of 

background noises (called maskers), and determine the direction and location of a sound source in the 

space around the animal. While actual data are available on these tasks for only a few fish species, other 

fish species are likely to have similar capabilities (reviewed in Fay and Megela-Simmons, 1999; Popper 

et al., 2003; Fay, 2005). In addition to their production of sound pressure, G&G sound sources also 

generate water particle motion, which can be significant near a source but attenuates more rapidly than 

pressure with distance from a sound source. Little is known about the role of particle motion in sensory 

detection or communication in fishes (Appendix J; Normandaeu Associates, Inc., 2012), but evidence 

exists that it can be relevant to communication in some sound-producing fishes (Zeddies et al., 2012).

Germane to issues of effects of loud sounds on fishes is that the sensory hair cells in fishes, as in 

mammals (including humans), can be damaged or actually killed by exposure to very loud sounds 

(Le Prell et al., 2011). In humans, once sensory cells die they are not replaced, resulting in deafness,

whereas fishes are able to repair and replace cells that die (e.g., Lombarte et al., 1993; McCauley et al., 

2003; Smith et al., 2006). Moreover, whereas in humans the ear has its full complement of sensory hair 

cells at birth, fishes continue to produce (proliferate) sensory hair cells for much of their lives, which 

results in fishes having more sensory hair cells as they age (Popper and Hoxter, 1984; Lombarte and 

Popper, 1994). Indeed, large Mediterranean hake (Merluccius merluccius) have been shown to have a 

million or more sensory hair cells in a single saccule (Lombarte and Popper, 1994), as compared to 

humans, which have, at birth, no more than 20,000 sensory cells in the auditory part of the ear. Because 

fishes have the ability to repair damaged sensory hair cells and continuously proliferate them, fishes are 

not likely to ever become permanently deaf. There is some chance of temporary hearing loss, but this is 

quickly repaired (Smith et al., 2006), and there is no evidence in fishes for permanent hearing loss. 

Although McCauley et al. (2003) does indicate that exposure to seismic airguns can cause significant 

damage to the ears of fishes, there are several caveats associated with those findings, including (1) fish 

were caged and unable to swim away from the sound source; and (2) video monitoring indicated that the 

fish would have fled the sound source if possible. Although injury did occur and persist past the study 

period of 58 days, the applicability of this impact to the natural environment remains unclear. In the 

marine environment, adult fish exposed to elevated sound levels would be able to leave the area most 

severely impacted by the survey noise. Additional details regarding studies on hair cell damage from 

acoustic sources is included in Appendix J, Section 5.2. 

Basic data on hearing provide information about the range of frequencies that a fish can detect and the 

lowest sound level that a fish is able to detect at a particular frequency; this level is often called the 

“threshold.” Hearing thresholds have been determined for perhaps 100 species (Fay, 1988; Popper et al., 

2003; Ladich and Popper, 2004; Nedwell et al., 2004; Ramcharitar et al., 2006; Popper and Schilt, 2008). 

Table 4-27 summarizes data for selected species of interest for this analysis. These data demonstrate that, 

with few exceptions, fishes cannot hear sounds above about 3-4 kHz, and the majority of species are only 

able to detect sounds to 1 kHz or below. There have also been studies on a few species of cartilaginous 

fishes, with results suggesting that they detect sounds to no more than 600 or 800 Hz (e.g., Myrberg et al., 

1976; Myrberg, 2001; Casper et al., 2003; Casper and Mann, 2006).

Because most fish tissue is similar in density to water, sound pressure and particle motion propagate 

through the body of a fish, affected only by tissue, bone, or organs of differing density. Any structures 
4-130 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

within the body with different densities respond differently from other tissues and provide a mechanism 

for sound detection (Helfman et al., 1997). Available data, while very limited, suggest that the majority 

of marine species do not have specializations to enhance hearing and probably rely on both particle 

motion and sound pressure for hearing. Most importantly, it should be noted that hearing capabilities 

vary considerably between different bony fish species, and there is no clear correlation between hearing 

capability and environment. There is also broad variability in hearing capabilities within fish families 

(Table 4-27). Data presented in Table 4-27 have been organized by fish taxa (family level) because data 

are often not available for individual species of interest. However, it is reasonable to extrapolate between 

broad groups of fishes in most cases. Table 4-27 also identifies only the highest likely frequency of 

hearing, leaving out the low frequency portion of the hearing bandwidth. Emphasis on highest likely 

hearing frequency reflects sampling issues, given that what is known about low frequency hearing is often 

a function of the equipment used in the study and not what the fish actually hears. As a consequence, the 

low-frequency range, with a few exceptions, must be viewed with caution. However, it is accurate to 

state that most, if not all, fishes can detect sounds to below 100 Hz and likely to below 50 Hz.

In addition, Table 4-27 does not show the lowest sound levels that a fish can hear, nor does it indicate 

at what frequency best hearing (i.e., lowest threshold) occurs. Results indicate that there is wide variation 

in fish hearing data even for a single species, which is likely a result of differences in experimental 

design.

With these caveats, it is possible to make some useful generalizations with regard to fish hearing that 

remove some of the “variability” in the data and help focus understanding of fish hearing capabilities. 

Such generalizations also make it possible to “predict” hearing range and sensitivity of some species for 

which there are data on the structure of the ear and auditory system but no hearing data. For example, for 

bluefin tuna, despite lack of hearing data, it is possible to predict that the hearing range for this species is 

similar to that of other tuna based on similarities in ear structure (Song et al., 2006). Similarly, 

morphological data on the ears of deep-sea grenadiers leads to the suggestion that these species have inner 

ear specializations that are often associated with fishes that hear to 2,500-4,000 Hz and have good hearing 

sensitivity (Deng et al., 2011); a similar observation has been made for myctophids (Popper, 1980).

Based on this kind of analysis, it is possible to “categorize” fish into hearing capability groups. The 

hearing category groups presented in Table 4-27 were defined as follows:

• Group 1: Fishes that do not have a swim bladder. These fishes are likely to use only 

particle motion for sound detection. The highest frequency of hearing is likely to be 

no greater than 400 Hz, with poor sensitivity compared to fishes with a swim bladder. 

Fishes within this group would include flatfish, some gobies, some tunas, and all 

sharks and rays (and relatives).

• Group 2: Fishes that detect sounds from below 50 Hz to perhaps 800-1,000 Hz 

(though several probably detect sounds only to 600-800 Hz). These fishes have a 

swim bladder but no known structures in the auditory system that would enhance 

hearing, and sensitivity (lowest sound level detectable at any frequency) is not very 

great. Sounds would have to be more intense to be detected when compared to fishes 

in Group 3. These species detect both particle motion and pressure, and the 

differences between species are related to how well the species can use the pressure 

signal. A wide range of species fall into this category, including tuna with swim 

bladders, sturgeons, salmonids, etc.

• Group 3: Fishes that have some kind of structure that mechanically couples the 

inner ear to the swim bladder (or other gas bubble), thereby resulting in detection of a 

wider bandwidth of sounds and lower intensities than fishes in other groups. These 

fishes detect sounds to 3,000 Hz or more, and their hearing sensitivity, which is 

pressure driven, is better than in fishes of Groups 1 and 2. There are not many 

marine species known to fit within Group 3, but this group may include some species 

of sciaenids (Ramcharitar et al., 2006). It is also possible that a number of deep-sea 

species fall within this category based on the morphology of their auditory system 

(e.g., Popper, 1980; Deng et al., 2011). Other members of this group would include 

all of the Otophysan fishes, though few of these species other than catfishes are found 

in marine waters.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-131

• Group 4: All of these fishes are members of the herring family and their relatives 

(Clupeiformes). Their hearing below 1,000 Hz is generally similar to fishes in 

Group 1, but their hearing range extends to at least 4,000 Hz, and some species 

(e.g., American shad) are able to detect sounds to over 180 kHz (Mann et al., 2001).

Appendix J, Section 8.3 discusses the limited available information on sound use by aquatic 

invertebrates and summarizes potential impacts. Although there is little known about hearing in aquatic 

invertebrates, available information suggests that particle motion, not pressure, is the component of the 

sound field used by invertebrates. Several taxa produce sounds (e.g., snapping shrimps), presumably for 

communication; sound use by invertebrates remains relatively unstudied. Thus, a determination of 

whether masking or other behavioral effects are relevant to invertebrates cannot be assessed. Available 

data include both seismic and low frequency sound exposure study results. Seismic impulsive sound does 

not affect the behavior of shrimp (e.g., Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2005). Exposure to low frequency noise

has been shown to damage statocyst tissue in cephalopods (Andre et al., 2011); however, there are 

questions regarding methodology associated with this latter study effort (Appendix J, Section 8.3). 

4.2.5.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

Potential impacts on fisheries and EFH of routine activities involved in the proposed action are 

discussed in this chapter. The details of G&G surveys, equipment, and temporal and geographic coverage 

were treated in Chapter 3. A screening of different IPFs associated with these surveys is provided in 

Chapter 4.1.1. Although there is little specific information on any of these impacts in relation to 

fisheries resources or EFH in the AOI, the following discussion will assume that at least some members 

of the regional ichthyofauna including the demersal and pelagic categories discussed above in 

Chapter 4.2.5.1 could be affected to some degree by G&G activities.

IPFs related to fisheries resources and EFH identified in the initial screening (Table 4-2) included 

(1) active acoustic sound sources (i.e., airguns, electromechanical sources [e.g., subbottom profilers, 

side-scan sonar, etc.]), (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) seafloor disturbance; and (4) drilling 

discharges. The following subsections briefly discuss these IPFs.

4.2.5.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would include those where little to no measurable 

impacts are observed or expected. There would not be any adverse effects on a federally managed fish 

species or the absence of any adverse effect on EFH.

Minor impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would include those that are detectable but are neither 

severe nor extensive. Minor impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would include temporary 

displacement or disruption of important behavioral patterns of federally managed fish species. Minor 

impacts would also include spatially limited impact to EFH.

Moderate impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would be detectable and extensive but not severe. 

Moderate impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would include some degree of population-level 

physiological/anatomical damage to, population-level mortality to, or extended displacement of, large 

numbers of (i.e., population-level) a federally managed fish species. Moderate impacts would also 

include extensive damage (quantifiable loss depending on the habitat type) to EFH, or extensive 

disruption of behavioral patterns (including spawning, feeding, or ontogenetic migrations) that may 

adversely affect a species.

Major impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would be detectable, extensive, and severe. Major 

impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would include a high level of physiological/anatomical damage to, 

mortality to, or extended, long-term displacement of, a federally managed fish species. Major impacts 

would also include extensive, long-term damage (quantifiable loss depending on the habitat type) to EFH, 

or extensive, chronic disruption of behavioral patterns (including spawning, feeding, or ontogenetic 

migrations) that would adversely affect a species.
4-132 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.5.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Active acoustic sound sources included in the proposed action and described in Chapter 3.5 include 

two general types: airguns and electromechanical (boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; 

side-scan sonars; and multibeam depth sounders). Airguns are used for oil and gas exploration surveys, 

whereas electromechanical equipment is used for non-airgun HRG surveys typically conducted in 

conjunction with renewable energy and minerals management programs.

The potential effects of noise such as active acoustic sound sources (e.g., airgun noise) on fishes can 

be categorized in increasing order of severity as follows:

• behavioral responses;

• masking of biologically important sounds;

• temporal threshold shifts (hearing loss);

• physiological/anatomical effects; and

• mortality.

A review of available research on the effects of sound on fishes is provided in Appendix J. At 

present, there are no examples of sound effects on fishes or habitats from the AOI, but general 

information on auditory anatomy, physiology, and behavior is available and has been summarized below.

Potential for any of the aforementioned effects is related to sound levels and frequencies, distance 

from sound source, and species-specific hearing sensitivity. Fishes hear biologically relevant sounds and 

detect near-field particle motion with auditory anatomy, lateral lines, and sensory pore systems 

(Lobel, 2009). As noted in Appendix J, available scientific information on hearing sensitivity for fishes

indicates that there are currently hearing thresholds for only about 100 fish species. Findings showed that 

many fishes that have been tested cannot detect sounds above about 3-4 kHz, and most are only able to 

detect sounds to 1 kHz or below. Based on limited studies, it appears that a few species of cartilaginous 

fishes can only detect sounds that are around 600 or 800 Hz (Myrberg et al., 1976; Myrberg, 2001; Casper 

et al., 2003; Casper and Mann, 2006). Several of the commercially important fish families that occur 

within the AOI have similar hearing sensitivity characteristics (Appendix J, Table J-1). The highest 

frequency detected for some commercially important fish families (Labridae, Lutjanidae, Moronidae, 

Sciaenidae, and Scombridae) was around 1,000 Hz. However, members of the Clupeidae (important 

baitfishes) can detect higher frequencies that are around 4,000 Hz, and shad and menhaden can detect 

some very high frequencies that are greater than 120,000 Hz. In general, commercial fish species would 

be most susceptible to low frequency sound sources, including airguns and subbottom profilers.

At greater distances from seismic sound sources, temporary hearing loss, masking of biologically 

relevant sounds, and increased stress would be more likely. Ultimately, such effects would be 

species-specific and would likely be more of a concern for fishes that utilize sound for communication or 

environmental detection. The TTS effects have been difficult to detect in trials with fishes. Popper et al. 

(2005) documented TTS, based on measurement of ABR, in northern pike and lake chub. A received 

SEL (mean peak) of 177 dB re 1 μPa2

-s showed no TTS.

Behavioral responses to active acoustic sound sources are the most likely effects expected for the 

fisheries resources of the AOI. Fewtrell and McCauley (2012) found that fish exhibited alarm responses 

to airgun noise at levels exceeding 147–151 dB re 1 μPa SEL. Members of the demersal and pelagic 

categories described in Chapter 4.2.5.1, including some federally managed species, utilize sound to some 

extent for sensing their environment (which includes other soniferous species), calling to mates, sensing 

predators, or warding off aggressors (Rountree et al., 2006). Demersal soft bottom species best known for 

their use of sound in reproductive signaling are the drums (Sciaenidae), including the federally managed 

red drum. Because most species (weakfish, black drum, silver perch, and Atlantic croaker) of this family 

engage in species-specific chorusing during spawning periods, passive acoustic instruments have been 

used to identify spawning areas inside bays and estuaries (e.g., Mok and Gilmore, 1983; Rountree et al., 

2006; Luczkovich et al., 2008). It is reasonable to assume that some sciaenid taxa use sound to 

coordinate spawning activities in coastal and shelf waters of the AOI. Other demersal families known to 

produce sounds include stargazers, cusk-eels, and hakes. Several hard bottom demersal taxa such as 

groupers, drums, grunts, porgies, squirrelfishes, damselfishes, toadfishes, grenadiers, and gobies produce 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-133

sounds (Myrberg and Fuiman, 2002; Rountree et al., 2006). Some pelagic species, particularly herrings 

(Clupeidae), have very sensitive hearing (Appendix J). Detrimental physiological/anatomical effects of 

active acoustic noise on fish populations would represent moderate to severe levels of impact. Of the 

various types of seismic equipment discussed in Chapter 3, airguns have the greatest potential to affect 

fishes physiologically because of the nature of their sound output. The frequencies of sounds produced 

by airguns used in seismic airgun surveys range from 10 to 200 Hz, and sound source (pressure) levels 

range from 225 to 260 dB re 1 μPa. Airgun sounds are also pulsed and have a rapid rise time, a feature 

that can greatly increase the potential for physiological impacts. At close range (~10-20 m [33-66 ft]), 

airgun noise can damage auditory and non-auditory anatomy in fishes of all life stages (e.g., eggs and 

larvae). Physiological/anatomical effects caused by very loud sounds with rapid rise times primarily 

affect fishes with swim bladders but can be a threat in any situation where gas bubbles are embedded in 

soft tissues or where the change in pressure is sufficient to cause a change in state from dissolved to free 

for blood gases. In some cases, the sensory cells lining the auditory system of fishes have been shown to 

be irreparably damaged by sounds produced by seismic survey equipment. Popper (2005) and Wardle 

et al. (2001) note that the potential for pathological damage (i.e., to hearing structures) depends on the 

energy level of the received sound, its rise time, and the species-specific hearing characteristics of the 

species of interest. Few studies have assessed the pathological effects of seismic sound on fishes; 

available exposure study results also carry notable caveats (i.e., repetitive sound exposures are greater 

than would be realized by fishes during a seismic survey). McCauley et al. (2003) found that exposure to 

airgun sounds (i.e., peak to peak SPL of ~223 dB re 1 μPa; exposure to 600 pulses) produced observable 

anatomical damage to the auditory maculae of pink snapper. In most fish species, these cells 

continuously regenerate, and loss of auditory function would be restored following exposure. Such 

impacts would be most severe when the individual is close to the source.

In seismic airgun surveys, the sound source is constantly moving and intense sounds would rarely be 

close enough to individuals to inflict physiological or anatomical damage. Various sonar units emit 

semi-continuous noise that would not inflict physical damage to individuals unless at very close range. 

During normal seismic airgun surveys, the vessels are moving at 4.5-6 kn (8.3-11 km/hr, on the order of 

37-49 m of airgun array movement between seismic pulses at a duty cycle of one firing every 16 s). 

Effects of seismic airgun noise on the survival of early life stages of fishes are also of interest. 

Results of a Norwegian risk assessment of the effects of seismic airgun noise on fish eggs and larvae 

showed that effects were indistinguishable from natural variability (Booman et al., 1996; Saetre and Ona, 

1996).

Airguns are used as the seismic source for deep penetration and high-resolution surveys for oil and 

gas but are not expected to be typically used for HRG surveys in the renewable energy, and marine 

minerals programs. The highest amount of activity is expected in association with HRG and 2D seismic 

airgun surveys conducted for oil and gas exploration (Table 3-3). For example, 2D surveys cover large 

areas over relatively long periods (2-12 months). HRG surveys focus on individual OCS lease blocks or 

groups of OCS lease blocks. Thus, with HRG surveys, the area exposed to airgun noise would be 

smaller, survey trackline density higher, but survey duration would be shorter (days rather than months). 

Longer duration surveys over broad areas would likely cross schools or aggregations of fishes. 

Depending on water depth, these would include coastal pelagic, epipelagic, and demersal hard bottom

species. Interactions with these fisheries resources would be temporary because the survey vessel is 

constantly moving, but because of the broad survey areas, the likelihood of encountering fisheries 

resources increases. Surveys focused in a smaller area using airguns would present a greater potential 

threat to fishes because of higher levels of sound exposure. Long duration but widespread vs. short 

duration over small areas presents different sound exposure situations, both of which could lead to 

adverse impacts. Spawning aggregation sites, feeding areas, hard bottom habitats, artificial reefs, and any

other habitats where fishes aggregate would be susceptible to impacts from airgun noise. Repeated passes 

by a survey vessel conducting a site-specific survey could displace or disrupt spawning behavior of 

federally managed grouper and snapper species. Deepwater MPAs also support other species including 

snappers, sea basses, and tilefishes. Deepwater MPAs protecting such sites are discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.11.1.2. 

Species exposed to sound might move away from the sound source, experience short-term threshold 

shift (hearing loss), experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, increase levels of stress 

hormones, or may show no obvious effects. Mortality is very unlikely for the reasons stated above. 
4-134 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Overall background noise would increase during surveys of particular pre-plotted areas of seafloor such 

as individual OCS lease blocks, renewable energy sites, and sand borrow areas. Noise levels would 

return to ambient once a survey ends and the noise source is shut down. When exposure to sound ends, 

stress-related behavioral response by fishes would also be expected to end (McCauley et al., 2000a,b). 

The potential to disrupt spawning aggregations or schools of fishes important as prey for other fishes and 

marine mammals, when coupled with the mobile nature of the surveys, the temporary (short-term) nature 

of the surveys, the small area of the seafloor affected during the surveys relative to the overall AOI, and 

the possibility of fishes to temporarily move away from noise that is affecting them, suggests that the 

impacts from airguns to fisheries resources and EFH would be minor to moderate. 

Detailed acoustic characteristics of electromechanical sources are discussed in Appendix D. These 

sources are considered mid- or high-frequency sources operating in the range from 2 to 900 kHz 

(Table 3-10). The acoustic energy emitted outside the main operating frequency band is negligible; 

therefore, the electromechanical sources can be considered narrow-band sources. High-frequency sources 

are highly directive, with beam widths as narrow as few degrees or less. Broadband source levels for 

engineering sources range from 194.8 to 242 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Table 3-10). 

Very little information is available concerning the effects of mid- and high-frequency equipment on 

fishes, and available studies were conducted on species and in environments that differ from the AOI. 

Nevertheless, it is possible that noise from non-airgun HRG surveys may temporarily affect the behavior 

of some fish species within the AOI, particularly those capable of hearing in the high-frequency range 

(25-135 kHz) such as herrings, menhaden, and anchovies (Appendix J; Mann et al., 1997; Popper et al., 

2004). It is thought that the ability to perceive such high frequency sounds evolved as a means of sensing 

the presence of echolocating predators such as bottlenose dolphin, which are primary predators of these 

fish in the coastal oceans (Popper et al., 2004). Experimental tests conducted with blueback herring in the 

Savannah River (Georgia-South Carolina border) confirmed avoidance reactions to high frequency sound 

(Nestler et al., 1992). Results also determined a maximum avoidance response to sounds ranging from 

124.6 to 130.9 kHz at 187-200 dB re 1 μPa emitted by a single electromechanical transducer positioned 

180 ft (60 m) from the fish. Comparative trials using lower frequency sounds resulted in limited or no 

reaction from test subjects (Nestler et al., 1992). Other investigators recently examined population level 

consequences of military sonar exposure to Atlantic herring, concluding that the risk varies with 

population characteristics (Silve et al. 2012). Schools of Atlantic herring were exposed to sonar signals of 

1-2 kHz (low-frequency active sonar) and 6-7 kHz (mid-frequency active sonar) and playbacks of killer 

whale feeding sounds during their summer feeding migration in the Norwegian Sea. The fish schools 

neither significantly dived nor changed their packing density in response to either low- or mid-frequency 

range signals received by the fish at estimated SPLs up to 176 and 157 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and estimated

cumulative SELs up to 181 and 162 dB re 1 μPa2-s, respectively. During periods of low population 

density (e.g., during feeding), the risk of any population consequences is low even at relatively high sonar 

source levels (up to 225 dB re 1 μPa) during extended sonar exercises. When population is densely 

packed (e.g., during traditional overwintering), the risk to the population increases. Actual risk depends 

on the threshold of response, which is unknown.

These results and others on related species (Doksaeter et al., 2009) confirm that high-frequency

sounds emitted by active electromechanical acoustic operations in the AOI would likely affect the 

behavior of herrings and other fish resources in a detectable way. Changes in behavior, particularly in 

pre-spawning fish assembling to move into spawning rivers, could affect reproductive potential or feeding 

activity. In addition, temporary displacement of prey species could affect feeding routines of predatory 

fishes and marine mammals. Because the use of electromechanical sources would be mostly from 

moving vessels and individual surveys would be temporary and spatially limited, the impacts on these 

fishes and populations are expected to be minor. 

Vessel and Equipment Noise

Most of the G&G survey activity described in Chapter 3 would be conducted from vessels. Vessel 

noise is a combination of narrow-band (tonal) and broadband sound (Richardson et al., 1995). Tones 

typically dominate up to about 50 Hz, whereas broadband sounds may extend to 100 kHz. Broadband 

source levels for most small ships (a category that would include seismic survey vessels and support 

vessels for drilling of COST wells or shallow test wells) are anticipated to be in the range of 

170-180 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m rms SPL (Richardson et al., 1995). Broadband source levels for smaller boats 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-135

(a category that would include survey vessels for non-airgun HRG sites) are in the range of 150-170 dB re 

1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995). In addition as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.2.2, drilling-related

noise that would be associated with the installation of up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test 

wells associated with oil and gas exploration G&G activities is continuous, and generally of low 

frequencies (<500 Hz) including infrasonic frequencies in at least some cases (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Machinery noise can be continuous or transient, and variable in intensity. Noise levels vary with the type 

of drilling rig and the water depth. Drilling-related noise from jack-up platforms is continuous, and 

generally of very low frequencies (near 5 Hz). Drilling-related noises from semi-submersible platforms 

range in frequencies from 10 to 4,000 Hz, with estimated sound levels of 154 dB re 1 μPa. Source levels 

for drillships have been reported to be as high as 191 dB re 1 μPa during drilling. Noise of these levels 

falls within the general range of hearing in fishes (Amoser et al., 2004; Appendix J). Vessel and 

equipment sound source levels below those that can cause mortality, physiological/anatomical damage, or 

hearing loss may induce behavioral responses such as avoidance, alteration of swimming speed and 

direction, and alteration of schooling behavior (Sarà et al., 2007). Additionally, such noise can mask 

sounds that affect communication between fishes (Purser and Radford, 2011). Presently there are few 

areas within the AOI that do not experience vessel noise of some kind; regional fishes may have 

habituated to this noise (Appendix J; Lobel, 2009). Although vessel and equipment noise would increase 

in the AOI as a result of the proposed action scenario, negative effects on fish behavior are expected to be 

short-term and localized to areas where increased activity is concentrated. For these reasons, the impacts 

of vessel and equipment noise on fisheries resources and EFH are expected to be minor. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are bottom sampling (cores and 

grabs); placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; COST and shallow test 

well drilling; and placement of anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10). The primary concern is the 

potential for physical damage to demersal hard bottom and hard bottom associated fisheries resources. 

Similarly, EFH (coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitats) and federally managed species such as 

spiny lobster and members of the snapper/grouper complex could be affected by physical damage to hard 

bottom (Chapter 4.2.5.1.1). Placement of equipment on the seafloor would damage areas where direct 

contact with the seafloor occurs. On soft bottom, the damage can mean loss of small patches of epifauna 

and infauna; on hard bottom, contact can crush epibiota and damage structure of the founding hard

bottom. Many well-known hard bottom areas are designated as HAPCs or, in the case of Gray’s Reef, an 

NMS and thus would be avoided during G&G survey activities. Damage to unknown or unseen hard 

bottom could be adverse, but because of the small area covered by most bottom-tended equipment, such 

impacts would not be significant. Soft bottom areas where deployments are made would lose benthic 

organisms (because of burial and crushing), and bottom-feeding fishes would be temporarily displaced

from feeding areas.

The proposed action scenario indicates that individual grab samples, core samples, COST wells, test 

wells, and bottom-founded meteorological buoys would affect a relatively small portion of the seafloor 

within the AOI (Chapter 3.5.1.8). Grab and core samples individually would, on average, disturb an area 

of 10 m2

. When multiplied by the number of samples estimated for the proposed action scenario, the total 

area of seafloor disturbed would be about 11 ha (27 ac), or 0.00001 percent of the AOI. Seafloor area 

disturbed by individual COST and shallow test wells would vary with equipment and water depth but is 

projected to be about 16 ha (40 ac), or about 0.00002 percent of the AOI. A maximum of 

38 meteorological buoys may be placed on the seafloor in the AOI to support G&G activities. Seafloor 

disturbance caused by anchors and anchor sweep is expected to disturb about 129 ha (319 ac), or 

0.0002 percent of the AOI. At present, there is no estimate in the proposed action scenario for seafloor 

disturbance associated with placement of nodes, cables, and sensors that support ocean cable, nodal, 

vertical cable, VSP, CSEM, and MT surveys (Chapter 3.5.1.8). Given these estimates of minimal 

seafloor disturbance by projected G&G activities, the impacts to fishery resources and EFH are expected 

to be negligible. 
4-136 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Drilling Discharges

Discharges from COST and shallow test wells consist of drilling fluids and cuttings that would affect 

limited portions of the water column and seafloor surrounding individual wells. Two types of fluids are 

typically used in exploratory drilling: water-based drilling fluids (WBF) and synthetic-based drilling 

fluids (SBF) (Chapter 3.5.1.9). Oil-based drilling fluids (OBFs) have the potential to be used; however, 

OBFs are likely to be replaced by SBF in deepwater drilling because of the many advantageous features 

of SBF (Neff et al., 2000). WBFs are used in shallow wells or the shallow segment of deeper wells, 

whereas SBFs are routinely used in deeper wells. The WBFs would be discharged on site at or near the 

ocean surface along with drill cuttings. These materials would be deposited on the seafloor around the 

well, resulting in localized impact to infaunal assemblages that form the prey base for benthic feeding 

fishes. SBFs are recycled and are not discharged directly; however, some SBF is retained on cuttings 

particles that are discharged; cuttings and adhering SBFs would be deposited on the seafloor at and near 

the well site. Impacts of drilling muds and cuttings are due to direct smothering by the muds and cuttings, 

increased organic load from WBF and SBF constituents, altered grain size, and elevation of sediment 

trace metals and organics (USDOI, MMS, 2007c). Drilling discharges can temporarily affect infaunal 

communities through alteration of benthic community structure, similar to impacts associated with 

seafloor disturbances noted previously. The proposed action scenario described in Chapter 3.5.1.9

indicates that the total volumes generated from drilling one to three COST wells would range from 

2,000 to 6,000 bbl of cuttings and from 8,350 to 25,050 bbl of drilling fluid for the AOI. Because of the 

small areas affected by proposed G&G well drilling activities, the impacts to fisheries resources and EFH

because of drilling discharges are expected to be negligible. 

4.2.5.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Vessels used for G&G surveys could spill diesel fuel following a collision or other accident. Given 

the specifications for vessels used in G&G activities, a spill of 1.2-7.1 bbl of diesel fuel was developed 

(Chapter 3.5.2.1). Diesel is acutely toxic oil to algae, invertebrates, and fishes, and any contact with a 

diesel spill can result in death. However, small spills in open water such as the one described in 

Chapter 3.5.2.1 rapidly dissipate, and fish kills rarely result. For the duration of such a spill, species and 

life stages residing in the upper water column are most at risk for contact with the spilled fuel. Coastal 

pelagic and epipelagic adults (see Chapter 4.2.5.1.1) that forage at the ocean surface would be most 

likely to encounter a surface spill. Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), king mackerel 

(Scomberomorus cavalla), little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), 

species known to feed at the ocean surface, are at the greatest risk of exposure but would likely swim 

away from a small diesel spill. Planktonic early life stages (i.e., eggs of both demersal and pelagic 

species) would be unable to avoid a spill and, therefore, are most vulnerable to toxic properties of the 

diesel (e.g., Mos et al., 2008).

Numerous federally managed species described previously (see Chapter 4.2.5.1.3) have pelagic eggs 

and larvae that would be at risk if they encountered a diesel spill. The EFH most at risk from a small 

diesel spill would be pelagic Sargassum. Drifting in windrows or mats, Sargassum supports numerous 

fishes and invertebrates including the young of several federally managed species such as greater 

amberjack (Seriola dumerili), almaco jack (Seriola rivoliana), gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus), blue 

runner (Caranx crysos), dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus), and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri). Because 

the exposure of spilled diesel fuel on early life stages and Sargassum is expected to last for a day or less 

and have limited spatial extent, the impacts of a small accidental diesel fuel spill from G&G activities 

would be minor. 

4.2.5.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 and includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-137

(3) cumulative vessel traffic. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to affect 

fisheries resources and EFH include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater 

noise from sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources and vessel and equipment noise; 

(2) seafloor disturbance; (3) presence of structures (including vessels); and (4) a risk of a crude oil spill 

from a well blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other hazardous materials from accidents(smaller 

accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). 

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, five sources of potential impact

to fisheries resources and EFH have been identified in association with proposed G&G activities, 

including (1) active acoustic sound sources, (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) seafloor disturbance, 

(4) drilling discharges, and (5) accidental fuel spills. Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.5.2 and 

4.2.5.3 determined that activities projected to occur under Alternative A would result in negligible to 

minor impacts to fisheries resources and EFH, with the level of impact dependent upon the specific IPF 

being considered. The following analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or 

acting synergistically with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a 

significant impact.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

Anthropogenic contributions to ambient noise in the sea are primarily from vessel traffic, but also 

include oil and gas operations, nearshore construction activities, dredging, and sonar. Long -term noise 

data for the AOI have not been published. For the purposes of this analysis, and in consideration of the 

documented increases in marine transportation volumes along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, it is assumed that 

underwater noise from vessel traffic and other anthropogenic sources within the AOI is increasing. Most 

ambient noise is broadband and encompasses virtually the entire frequency spectrum, with vessel traffic 

recognized as a major contributor to ocean noise in the low-frequency bands between 5 and 500 Hz. 

Naturally occurring noise (e.g., spray and bubbles from breaking waves) are also a major contributor to 

ambient noise in the 500- to 100,000-Hz range. Ambient noise can affect fisheries resources via 

temporary hearing loss and alteration of normal, biologically relevant behavior (Appendix J). Noise 

impacts to fisheries resources and EFH from activities under the cumulative scenario are expected to be 

localized, either intermittent or continuous, and relatively minor. 

Oil and gas G&G airgun surveys have not been conducted in the AOI in decades. The G&G activities 

would contribute numerous sources of noise during the Programmatic EIS time period, including seismic

surveys (airguns and electromechanical sources) and vessel and equipment noise. These sources would 

contribute to ambient noise levels within the AOI. Noise-producing activities expected for the proposed 

G&G scenario are presented in Chapter 3.5.1 and Table 3-3. 

Several noise-producing G&G activities such as 2D and 3D seismic airgun surveying are expected to 

decrease incrementally from 2012-2020, whereas others including HRG surveys would increase from 

2018-2020. For active acoustic sound sources, overall background noise would increase during surveys 

of particular pre-plotted areas of seafloor such as individual OCS lease blocks, renewable energy buoy 

sites, and sand borrow areas. There would be minor increases in ambient noise levels within specific 

portions of the AOI during G&G operations. Ambient noise levels would return once the survey ends and 

the noise source is terminated. The impacts to fisheries resources and EFH caused by sound sources 

associated with the proposed G&G activities were evaluated to be minor to moderate (Chapter 

4.2.5.2.2). 

The AFTT sound source types and activities are summarized in Chapter 3.6.7. The airgun surveys 

considered under BOEM’s Programmatic EIS represent a class of noise that is similar in ways to certain 

AFTT sound sources such as explosive testing and exercises involving the firing and detonation of live 

ordnance, and different in others such as military sonar (e.g., as waveforms, pulse duration, operational 

frequency, and sound energy direction). However, the impacts cause by the sound sources to fisheries

resources and EFH are similar.

No significant impacts to fish have been identified in association with AFTT activities and their 

acoustic sources (USDON, 2012), as outlined in Chapter 3.6.7. Its cumulative analysis considered the 

same suite of noise-producing activities and determined them to have a negligible impact. 
4-138 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The mobile nature of the surveys as well as the temporary surveying of small areas of the seafloor 

relative to the overall area and the propensity of fishes to temporarily move away from noise that is 

affecting them suggest that the incremental increase in impacts to fisheries resources and EFH would be 

small. For vessel and equipment noise exposure, masking and short-term behavior modifications are 

likely; for this reason, the incremental increase in impacts from G&G activity-based vessel and equipment 

noise is expected to be minor. 

As noted previously, it is assumed that noise levels associated with non-G&G activities would 

increase throughout the 2012-2020 period, producing minor impacts to fisheries resources and EFH over 

the course of the Programmatic EIS time period. Noise from G&G operations would be survey- or 

activity-based, occurring on a transient and intermittent basis over the period of interest. Because only 

minor noise impacts are expected from the cumulative activities scenario, and there is no evidence to 

suggest that noise from G&G activities would push ambient noise levels above a threshold level where 

fisheries resources and EFH might be significantly affected, the impacts associated with the proposed 

action would result in a minor incremental increase in ambient noise levels under the cumulative 

scenario.

Presence of Structures Including Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Cumulative scenario activities, including oil and gas exploration, renewable energy, geosequestration, 

and LNG terminals, have the potential for the emplacement of structures within the AOI. Permanent and 

temporarily moored structures, including drilling rigs, barges, buoys, wind turbines, platforms, and other 

structures, would attract fishes. Pelagic and demersal species would be attracted to particular structures. 

Specific concerns and impacts associated with the presence of structures resulting from the cumulative 

activities scenario would include the diversion of species from normal migratory pathways, feeding areas, 

and/or spawning areas. In addition, individuals attracted to structures would then be subjected to chronic 

noise, routine discharges, or increased vulnerability to overfishing. Lights would enhance attractiveness 

for some species that are active at night. Incremental impacts to fisheries resources and EFH arising from 

structure presence, including vessel and helicopter traffic, under the cumulative activities scenario are 

expected to be negligible.

Most G&G activities would be of short duration and are not expected to cause permanent alteration of 

migratory, feeding, or breeding schedules in fishery species. Because of the small size of structures and 

the relatively short duration of deployments, the incremental increase in impacts to fisheries resources and 

EFH from the presence of structures under Alternative A is negligible. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Seafloor disturbance can damage or alter hard or soft demersal habitats important to fisheries

resources and, in some cases, designated EFH (Chapter 4.2.5.2). Non-G&G activities in the AOI known 

to disturb the seafloor include geosequestration, commercial fishing (bottom trawling and dredging), 

dredged material disposal, LNG terminal placement, military range complexes and civilian space program 

use, and new cable infrastructure. Geosequestration involves drilling wells, placing anchors, and laying 

pipelines on the seafloor. Currently there are no geosequestration facilities planned for the AOI and none 

expected in the foreseeable future. Commercial fishing with bottom trawls or dredges can inflict 

considerable damage to demersal habitats. The extent of the seafloor disturbance caused by 

bottom-tending fisheries within the AOI has not been quantified. Use of bottom-tending gear is not 

expected to increase for the 2012-2020 duration of the Programmatic EIS. Placement of LNG terminals 

would involve seafloor disturbance; however, no activity is expected during the Programmatic EIS time 

period. Disposal of dredged material in offshore waters can potentially smother demersal biota. The AOI 

currently has 13 designated offshore dredge disposal material sites from Virginia south to Florida 

(Chapter 3.6.9). These sites are expected to be used at current levels for the 2012-2020 period. Military 

range complexes and civilian program use could involve placement of buoys or other equipment that 

could potentially disturb the seafloor. These actions would affect a relatively small area of seafloor 

within the AOI for the duration of the Programmatic EIS period. Incremental impacts to fisheries 

resources and EFH attributed to seafloor disturbance under the cumulative activities scenario are expected 

to be negligible. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-139

Seafloor disturbance expected from the proposed G&G action scenario would be caused by bottom 

sampling, well drilling, coring, anchoring, sand dredging, pipeline or cable installation, and emplacement 

of structures (wind turbines, buoys, etc.). As reviewed previously (Chapter 4.2.5.2), the small footprint 

of individual contacts would be minimal, and for the entire G&G scenario seafloor impacts would account 

for a small fraction of the total seafloor area of the AOI for the 2012-2020 period. The G&G operations 

for the 2012-2020 period are expected to contribute minor incremental impacts to EFH in the form of 

seafloor disturbance within the AOI. Because BOEM would require prior approval of any G&G activities 

involving seafloor-disturbing activities, drilling discharges, or placement of bottom founded equipment or 

structures, impacts on fisheries resources and EFH are expected to be avoided. 

Accidental Fuel Spills

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to fisheries resources or EFH would vary depending on the location and 

size of the spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts would be 

analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted by an operator. Potential 

impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be examined in the EA prior to any 

wells being drilled. In addition, a project-specific EA would require an analysis of site-specific 

information regarding fisheries resources and EFH and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts 

from drilling activities and potential accidental crude oil spills. In addition, with the required mitigation 

measures in place and with oversight of these activities by the BSEE, an accidental crude oil spill from an 

exploratory well is not anticipated; however, a spill still could occur. With these mitigation measures in 

place, the impacts to fisheries resources and EFH from exploratory drilling operations would be expected 

to range from negligible to minor depending on location.

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including 

high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing activity would also 

contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and 

subsequent loss of fuel. The risk of accidental fuel spills arising from a vessel collision under the 

cumulative scenario is expected to range from negligible to minor. 

Each G&G activity that involves survey vessels has the potential to result in an accidental fuel spill. 

A survey vessel colliding with another vessel or structure could result in a diesel fuel spill ranging from 

1.2 to 7.1 bbl (Chapter 3.5.2.1). The likelihood of such a spill is considered remote for the G&G 

activity scenario. Spilled diesel fuel would evaporate, disperse, and break down within a day, resulting in 

a negligible impact to fisheries resources and EFH. Non-G&G activity at risk for spilled fuel include 

geosequestration, commercial and recreational fishing, military activity, and dredged material disposal. 

Assuming a similar spill scenario for non-G&G activity, the incremental impacts to the cumulative 

scenario attributed to G&G activities are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

4.2.6. Threatened and Endangered Fish Species

4.2.6.1. Description of the Affected Environment

This chapter discusses marine fishes that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The 

NMFS has jurisdiction over most marine and anadromous fishes listed under the ESA, including the 

species discussed here. In addition to ESA-listed species, this chapter addresses proposed and candidate 

species. A proposed species is one for which NMFS has conducted a status review and issued an official 

proposal in the Federal Register to list the species as endangered or threatened (USDOC, NMFS, 2011j). 
4-140 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

A candidate species is any species that is undergoing a status review that NMFS has announced in a 

Federal Register notice (USDOC, NMFS, 2011j).

Two marine fish species that occur in the AOI, the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) and the 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), are currently listed as endangered. An endangered 

anadromous fish species potentially occurring in the AOI is the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum), which inhabits rivers along the Atlantic Coast but rarely ventures into coastal marine 

waters (USDOC, NMFS, 1998). NMFS also has evaluated Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) for 

ESA listing, but announced on May 27, 2011, that ESA listing is not warranted for the species at this time 

(Federal Register, 2011f). Bluefin tuna is now designated as a species of special concern. NMFS also 

recently evaluated two anadromous species – blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife (Alosa 

pseudoharengus) – for ESA listing as threatened, but on August 12, 2013, NMFS determined that ESA 

listing is not warranted for these species at this time (Federal Register, 2013b). NMFS has been 

petitioned recently to consider listing scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) and white marlin

(Kajikia albida) as threatened or endangered. Six DPSs were identified for scalloped hammerhead 

worldwide (Miller et al., 2013). One of these, the central and southwest Atlantic DPS, abuts (but does not 

overlap) the southern boundary of the AOI off Florida (28 N). However, in January 2013, NMFS 

determined that the petitions for white marlin do not present substantial scientific information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be warranted (Federal Register, 2013c). In November 2012, the WildEarth 

Guardians petitioned NMFS to list the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) as endangered throughout its 

entire range, which includes the AOI. In May 2013, NMFS agreed that sufficient scientific data existed to 

consider this listing (Federal Register, 2013d). The dusky shark was not considered in the analyses 

presented below.

4.2.6.1.1. Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

Status (Endangered)

In response to a petition from the Ocean Conservancy, NMFS conducted a status review of the 

smalltooth sawfish in 2000 (USDOC, NMFS, 2000). The status review determined that smalltooth 

sawfish in U.S. waters comprise a DPS and that the DPS is in danger of extinction throughout its range. 

On April 1, 2003, NMFS published a final rule (Federal Register, 2003b) listing this DPS as endangered 

under the ESA. 

Over the past 200 years, smalltooth sawfish populations have declined considerably, primarily 

because of incidental capture by fishing gear as well as destruction of habitat. The ESA listing was based 

on the following considerations: the threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 

range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural and manmade factors affecting the continued existence 

of the species. Critical habitat was designated in 2009 (Federal Register, 2009c). Figure 4-18 shows the 

location of critical habitat in southern and southwestern Florida. Maintenance and protection of habitat is 

an important component of the recovery plan for this species (USDOC, NMFS, 2009b). Recent studies

indicate that key habitat features (particularly for immature individuals) consist of shallow water, 

especially near mangroves, with estuarine conditions.

Distribution

The historic range of smalltooth sawfish extended throughout the Gulf of Mexico and north to Long 

Island Sound on the east coast but has contracted considerably in U.S. coastal waters over the past 

200 years. Currently, the core of the smalltooth sawfish DPS is surviving and reproducing in the waters 

of southwest Florida and Florida Bay, primarily within the jurisdictional boundaries of Everglades 

National Park where important habitat features are still present and less fragmented than in other parts of 

the historic range (Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2005; USDOC, NMFS, 2009b). This area includes most of 

the critical habitat shown in Figure 4-18. 

A search of the National Sawfish Encounter Database (Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2006), which is 

managed by the Florida Museum of Natural History Sawfish Implementation Team, revealed only two 

recent sightings of smalltooth sawfish in the AOI (Figure 4-19). One sighting was offshore northeastern 

Florida, and another offshore Georgia was reported by a bottom longline fishery observer who 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-141

documented the capture of an estimated 4-m (13-ft) adult from depths of 46 to 73 m (152 to 242 ft) 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2010c).

Life History

Little is known about smalltooth sawfish habitat use, age, growth, reproduction, feeding, or predators 

and competitors (USDOC, NMFS, 2009b, 2010c). The smalltooth sawfish normally inhabits shallow 

waters (<10 m [33 ft]), often near river mouths or in estuarine lagoons over sandy or muddy substrates, 

but may also occur in deeper waters (<50 m [164 ft]) of the continental shelf. Shallow water less than 

1 m (3 ft) appears to be important nursery area for young smalltooth sawfish. Smalltooth sawfish grow 

slowly and mature at about 10 years of age. Females bear live young, and litters reportedly range from 

1 to 20 embryos (USDOC, NMFS, 2009b).

Smalltooth sawfish feed on benthic invertebrates and fishes. The saw has been considered as a 

trophic apparatus, used to herd and even impale shallow-water schooling fishes such as herrings and 

mullets (Breder, 1952). It appears more likely that the saw is used to rake the seafloor to uncover 

partially buried invertebrates.

Small juvenile sawfishes may be susceptible to predation from bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) and 

lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) that inhabit similar water depths as the smalltooth sawfish. The 

toothed saw of fish of all sizes will readily entangle in nets, ropes, monofilament line, discarded pipe 

sections, and other debris (Seitz and Poulakis, 2006). Some sawfish are caught incidentally on 

hook-and-line by fishers seeking sharks, tarpon, or groupers, and though most are released unharmed, 

many of these interactions will result in death of the individual. There was and may still be some 

incentive to collecting the saws as curios, but this has not been well documented. There have been no 

studies on competition between sawfishes and other co-occurring species.

4.2.6.1.2. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Status (Endangered)

The shortnose sturgeon belongs to the family Acipenseridae and is one of several members of the 

family found exclusively in North America. This species was originally listed as endangered on 

March 11, 1967 (Federal Register, 1967) under the Endangered Preservation Act of 1966. Subsequently, 

NMFS prepared a recovery plan for the species under the ESA (Federal Register, 1998b), and at present 

there are 19 east coast rivers considered to support DPSs (USDOC, NMFS, 1998b). Population declines 

were attributed to habitat loss or alteration, pollution, and incidental capture in nets set for other species.

Distribution

The shortnose sturgeon is primarily an estuarine and riverine species and rarely enters the coastal 

ocean of the AOI. Most of the river systems listed as DPSs are in North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, and northern Florida (USDOC, NMFS, 1998b). Although these systems drain into the estuaries 

or the coastal ocean portion of the AOI, shortnose sturgeon have rarely been found in coastal or shelf 

waters (Dadswell et al., 1984; Moser and Ross, 1995; Collins and Smith, 1997). Collins and Smith 

(1997) reviewed available records and reported 39 individuals ranging from 60 to 100 cm (2 to 3.3 ft) 

total length caught offshore of South Carolina from January to March. Dadswell et al. (1984) reported 

eight records from the Atlantic Ocean between Cape Henry, Virginia, and Cape Fear, North Carolina. 

Life History

The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous species found in larger rivers and estuaries of the North 

America eastern seaboard from the St. Johns River in Florida to the St. Johns River in Canada. Although 

shortnose sturgeon occur primarily in fresh and estuarine waters, they occasionally will enter the coastal 

ocean. Adults ascend rivers to spawn from February to April; eggs are deposited over hard bottom, in 

shallow, fast-moving water (Dadswell et al., 1984; Murdy et al., 1997). Fecundity ranges from 

27,000-208,000 eggs per female (Murdy et al., 1997). Growth is relatively slow, with females reaching 

maturity in 6-7 years, whereas males mature in 3-5 years. Shortnose sturgeon can live to be over 

67 years, with an average life span of 30-40 years.
4-142 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.6.1.3. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) 

Status (Threatened–Gulf of Maine DPS; Endangered–New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 

Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs) 

In 2009, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC, 2009) petitioned NMFS to list the Atlantic 

sturgeon as endangered under the ESA. The NRDC requested that the species be segregated into five 

DPSs, including Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic 

(Figure 4-20). On February 6, 2012, NOAA-NMFS issued final rules classifying the Gulf of Maine DPS 

as threatened and the other four DPSs, which are in the AOI, as endangered (Federal Register, 2012d). 

These recent listings did not designate critical habitat due to a lack of information on individual DPSs.

Distribution

Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were distributed along the east coast and inhabited 38 coastal rivers 

from the St. Johns River, Florida, to Hamilton Inlet, Labrador. Today they inhabit 32 coastal rivers over a 

reduced geographic range, with the center of abundance being the New York Bight (Atlantic Sturgeon 

Status Review Team, 2007; Dunton et al., 2010).

Life History

The Atlantic sturgeon is an anadromous species that resides for much of each year in estuarine and 

marine waters, but ascends coastal rivers in spring to spawn in freshwater. Spawning populations occur 

in 20 of the 32 east coast rivers that support Atlantic sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon are generally slow 

growing and late maturing, and mature individuals may not spawn every year; generally, the range 

between spawning is 1-5 years. Spawning takes place in flowing freshwater. Depending on their size, 

mature females produce between 400,000 and 8 million eggs. The eggs are adhesive and attach to gravel 

or other hard substrata. Larvae develop as they move downstream to the estuarine portion of the 

spawning river, where they reside as juveniles for years. Subadults will move into coastal ocean waters 

where they may undergo extensive movements usually confined to shelly or gravelly bottoms in 10- to 

50-m (33- to 164-ft) water depths (Stein et al., 2004; Erickson et al., 2011). Fish distribution varies 

seasonally within this depth range. During summer months (May to September) fish are primarily found 

in the shallower depths of 10-20 m (33-66 ft). In winter and early spring (December to March), fish move 

to depths between 20 and 50 m (66 and 165 ft) (Erickson et al., 2011). Shelf areas <18 m (59 ft) deep off 

Virginia and the sandy shoals offshore of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, appear to be areas of 

concentration during summer months (Laney et al., 2007). The area of high concentration offshore of 

Virginia was centered from 15 to 37.5 km (9.3 to 23.3 mi) from shore, and the maximum distance from 

shore during winter was about 112.5 km (70 mi). Although there is considerable intermingling of 

populations in the coastal oceans, adults return to their natal rivers to spawn. Adults grow to lengths of 

4.3 m (14 ft) and weights of 363 kg (800 lb) and live for up to 60 years. Age at maturity varies with 

subpopulation but ranges from 5 to 10 years in South Carolina to 22-34 years in the St. Lawrence River, 

Canada.

4.2.6.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

Preliminary screening in Chapter 4.1.1 identified six IPFs from routine G&G activities that may 

affect threatened and endangered fishes: (1) active acoustic sound sources; (2) vessel and equipment 

noise; (3) vessel traffic; (4) trash and debris; (5) seafloor disturbance; and (6) drilling discharges

(Table 4-2). Three endangered fish species (smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic 

sturgeon occur in the AOI. Ecological characteristics, geographic distribution, and life history 

information for these species were presented previously (Chapter 4.2.6.1). The following text briefly 

discusses impacts resulting from identified IPFs. Significance criteria are presented below, followed by 

discussion of individual IPFs.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-143

4.2.6.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to threatened and endangered fish species would include those where little to no 

measurable impacts are observed or expected.

Minor impacts to threatened and endangered fish species would include those that are detectable but 

are neither severe nor extensive. Minor impacts to threatened and endangered fish species would include 

temporary displacement or disruption of important behavioral patterns of federally listed fish species.

Moderate impacts to threatened and endangered fish species would be detectable and extensive but 

not severe. Moderate impacts to threatened and endangered fish species would include some degree of 

mortality to, or extended displacement of, a federally listed fish species. Moderate impacts would also 

include extensive disruption of behavioral patterns (including spawning, feeding, or ontogenetic 

migrations) that may adversely affect a federally listed fish species.

Major impacts to threatened and endangered fish species would be detectable, extensive, and severe. 

Major impacts to threatened and endangered fish species would include a high level of mortality to, or 

extended, long-term displacement of, a federally listed fish species. Major impacts would also include 

extensive, chronic disruption of behavioral patterns (including spawning, feeding, or ontogenetic 

migrations) that would adversely affect a federally listed fish species.

4.2.6.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Active acoustic sound sources included in the proposed action and described in Chapter 3.5 include 

two general types: airguns and electromechanical (boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; 

side-scan sonars; and multibeam depth sounders). Airguns are used for oil and gas exploration surveys, 

whereas electromechanical equipment is typically used for HRG surveys conducted in conjunction with 

renewable energy and minerals management programs. Active acoustic sound level can reach 230.7 dB

re 1 μPa SEL for the large airgun array and 210.3 dB re 1 μPa SEL for the small array (Table 3-11). 

Airguns generally have a frequency range from about 10-2,000 Hz; however, most of the acoustic energy 

is radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. Electromechanical sources vary in terms of operating frequency 

and sound levels (213-226 dB re 1 μPa SEL) (Table 3-11). In addition to generating sound pressure, 

active acoustic sources also affect water particle motion (Appendix J; Normandeau Associates, Inc., 

2012). Based on the proposed action summary presented in Table 3-3, seismic airgun surveys would 

potentially cover 617,775 line km of 2D surveys, 2,500 blocks of 3D surveys (or 120,000 line km, 

assuming 48 line km [30 line mi] per block), 900 line km of 3D WAZ and FAZ coil surveys, 1,280 line 

km of VSP surveys, and 175,465 line km of HRG surveys (using electromechanical equipment).

Effects of various sound sources on behavior and physiology of fishes are detailed in Appendix J. In 

general, potential effects of active acoustic sound sources on endangered and threatened fishes can be 

categorized as follows:

• behavioral responses;

• masking;

• temporary threshold shifts (hearing loss);

• physiological/anatomical effects; and

• mortality.

To determine if active acoustic sounds in the AOI would result in any of these effects on threatened 

and endangered fish species requires an understanding of the sound source (sound levels and frequency), 

distance from the sound source of fish at exposure, sound propagation, and the biological characteristics 

of the exposed species (species-specific hearing capabilities).

Smalltooth Sawfish

No specific information is available on hearing range in smalltooth sawfish, thus inferences must be 

made by examing available data on other elasmobranchs (sharks and rays). From this perspective, the 

smalltooth sawfish likely hears sounds within a very low frequency range (600 or 800 Hz) and relies on 
4-144 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

water particle motion to sense these sounds (Myrberg et al., 1976; Myrberg, 2001; Casper et al., 2003; 

Casper and Mann, 2006). Therefore, sound from airguns (10-2,000 Hz) projected for the proposed action 

are likely within the audible range of the smalltooth sawfish. With the exception of the boomer and 

sparker subbottom profiler (0.2-16 kHz), sounds from the electromechanical equipment fall within a 

much higher frequency range (3.5-400 kHz) than the airguns (Table 3-11) and outside of the smalltooth 

sawfish’s hearing range. Airgun noise and water particle motion would be of primary concern where it 

affects behavior of individuals, particularly those involved in reproduction or foraging. As with sound 

pressure, particle motion is greatest very close to the sound source and attenuates much more rapidly than 

sound pressure with increasing range from the source (Appendix J; Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2012). 

Smalltooth sawfish are currently absent from areas north of North Carolina (Mid-Atlantic Planning Area) 

and rare between Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (South Atlantic Planning 

Area). Surveys of sand borrow areas or renewable energy sites conducted in inner shelf or coastal waters 

would be the most likely G&G activities to encounter smalltooth sawfish. Renewable energy and marine 

minerals surveys are not expected to use airguns, with the possible exception of a deep penetration 

seismic survey for geosequestration. For these reasons, impacts of active acoustic sound on smalltooth 

sawfish are expected to be negligible. 

Shortnose Sturgeon

As with smalltooth sawfish, little is known about hearing in shortnose sturgeon. Studies on other 

sturgeon species indicate hearing at very low frequencies (<800 Hz) (Appendix J). Interestingly, some 

sturgeon species apparently produce sounds prior to reproduction that can be higher (2 kHz) than their 

detectable hearing range (Johnston and Phillips, 2003). From this information it can be assumed that 

shortnose sturgeon hearing is probably in the range of frequencies generated by airguns and subbottom 

profilers described in Table 3-11. The severity of impacts caused by airguns (i.e., sound pressure and 

particle motion) would depend on the source level of the airgun array and distance from the source. For 

Alternative A, the most likely effects of active acoustic noise on shortnose sturgeon would be temporary 

hearing loss, masking, and behavioral changes. The fact that most individual shortnose sturgeon reside 

primarily within estuaries and rivers outside of the AOI suggests that any effects would be limited in 

space and over time. Certainly some segment of the shortnose sturgeon population enters into the coastal 

ocean where seismic airgun surveys are proposed, but interactions with G&G surveys using active 

acoustic equipment are expected to be rare. The extent of seismic surveys within shallower waters where 

shortnose sturgeon may be present is expected to be small relative to the overall seismic survey effort. 

Therefore, the effect of active acoustic sound sources noise on shortnose sturgeon is expected to be 

negligible. 

Atlantic Sturgeon

As described above for the shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon likely has underwater hearing 

sensitivity that is limited to less than 800 Hz, suggesting that this species is most susceptible to 

low-frequency noise sources. Active acoustic sound sources, particularly airguns, introduce particle 

motion and produce sounds in low frequency ranges that overlap with the presumed hearing range of 

Atlantic sturgeon. Unlike the smalltooth sawfish and shortnose sturgeon, the Atlantic sturgeon occurs 

widely over the shelf of the AOI. Concentrations of this species occur offshore of North Carolina and 

Virginia in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area and South Carolina in the South Atlantic Planning Area. 

Active acoustic sound produced by surveys using airguns would be most prevalent in the Mid-Atlantic 

Planning Area, primarily because of G&G activities associated with oil and gas exploration (Table 3-9). 

The proposed action scenario indicates that the level of 2D, 3D, and active acoustic geophysical 

surveying proposed for the AOI could temporarily disrupt or displace Atlantic sturgeon in areas of known 

concentration. Affected DPSs would include Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic. Impacts on 

Atlantic sturgeon are expected to be minor. 

Vessel and Equipment Noise

The G&G activities from oil and gas, marine minerals, and renewable energy programs would 

involve vessel traffic within the AOI. Seismic airgun survey vessels are the largest vessels and would 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-145

account for most of the line miles traveled. Based on expected G&G activity levels, these surveys could 

occur anywhere within the AOI. Vessels conducting non-airgun HRG surveys or sampling tend to be 

smaller and operate mainly at specific sites, usually in coastal or inner shelf waters (<40 m; 131 ft). 

Seismic airgun surveys conducted from large vessels may last for weeks or months, whereas small 

support vessels are expected to make daily round trips from shore bases to offshore facilities 

(Chapter 3.5.1.3). Vessel noise is a combination of narrow-band (tonal) and broadband sound 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Tones typically dominate up to about 50 Hz, whereas broadband sounds may 

extend to 100 kHz. Broadband source levels for most small ships (a category that would include seismic 

survey vessels and support vessels for drilling of COST wells or shallow test wells) are anticipated to be 

in the range of 170-180 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995). Broadband source levels for smaller 

boats (a category that would include survey vessels for non-airgun HRG) are in the range of 150-170 dB 

re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995). Noise levels dissipate quickly with distance from the vessel. In 

addition to sounds generated by the vessel engines, the hull moving through the water produces a very 

low frequency pressure wave that fish can detect and will avoid.

In addition, as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.2.2, drilling-related noise that would be associated with the 

installation of up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells associated with oil and gas 

exploration G&G activities is continuous and generally of low frequencies (<500 Hz), including 

infrasonic frequencies in at least some cases (Richardson et al., 1995). Machinery noise can be 

continuous or transient, and variable in intensity. Noise levels vary with the type of drilling rig and water 

depth. Drilling-related noise from jack-up platforms is continuous and generally of very low frequencies 

(near 5 Hz). Drilling-related noises from semi-submersible platforms range in frequencies from 10 Hz to 

4 kHz, with estimated sound levels of 154 dB re 1 μPa-m. Source levels for drillships have been reported 

to be as high as 191 dB re 1 μPa during drilling. In addition to sounds generated by the vessel engines, 

the hull moving through the water produces a very low frequency pressure wave that fish can detect and 

will avoid.

Smalltooth Sawfish

The G&G activities would introduce vessel and equipment noise throughout the AOI. Smalltooth 

sawfish could be adversely affected by vessel and equipment noise, but because of limited geographical 

distribution and abundance within the AOI coupled with the fact that they are bottom dwellers situated 

away from the source, exposures to such noise would be rare. The impacts of vessel and equipment noise 

on smalltooth sawfish individuals in the AOI would be negligible. 

Shortnose Sturgeon

Hearing in shortnose sturgeon is limited to perception of particle motion. Shortnose sturgeon could 

be adversely affected by vessel and equipment noise generated by G&G operations if individuals were 

concentrated in areas of G&G vessel activity. However, it is not likely that shortnose sturgeon would be 

subjected to vessel and equipment noise associated with the G&G activity scenario for several reasons, 

e.g., distribution and habitat preference. The species occurs regularly in estuaries and rivers adjacent to, 

but only rarely in, the coastal and shelf waters of the AOI (Laney et al., 2007; Erickson et al., 2011). The 

shortnose sturgeon is a bottom dweller; individuals would be far from vessel and equipment noise 

produced by G&G vessels and therefore in the far-field of the sound sources, where the particle motion 

component of the propagating sound field is negligible. Given these factors, impacts of vessel and 

equipment noise on shortnose sturgeon would be negligible. 

Atlantic Sturgeon

As with the aforementioned species, vessel and equipment noise could adversely affect the behavior 

of Atlantic sturgeon in the waters of the AOI. The G&G activities would increase the levels of vessel 

traffic, and therefore noise, in the AOI. Unlike the shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon regularly occurs 

in coastal and shelf waters of the AOI; available information indicates that concentrations of fish occur 

offshore of North Carolina and Virginia in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area and South Carolina in the 

South Atlantic Planning Area (Laney et al., 2007; Erickson et al., 2011). This suggests that Atlantic 

sturgeon would be exposed to increased vessel noise related to G&G activities. However, because of this 
4-146 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

species’ benthic association, increased noise levels and particle motion associated with G&G vessel 

traffic and equipment are not expected to adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon. Impacts are expected to be 

negligible. 

Vessel Traffic

Vessel traffic has the potential to affect endangered and threatened fish species through interaction 

(i.e., vessel strikes) with motor vessels, particularly those operating in shallow water (relative vessel 

draft). Fish interactions with vessels have been documented for estuarine/riverine Atlantic sturgeon

(Brown and Murphy, 2010). This phenomenon has been documented in the Delaware River estuary 

where the main channel is narrow relative to the beam and draft of large cargo vessels that regularly 

traverse these waters. Propeller wash from large vessels can entrain adult, bottom-dwelling sturgeon 

causing direct injury from contact with the propellers. Mortalities, recorded primarily during spawning 

season as adult fish were moving upstream, would likely hamper recovery efforts of Atlantic sturgeon 

(Brown and Murphy, 2010). Although ship strikes within estuaries and rivers are a significant source of 

mortality for Atlantic sturgeon, it is not expected to be a problem in the open shelf of the AOI where 

vessel traffic associated with most G&G activities would take place. Vessel strike mortality from 

increased vessel traffic associated with the proposed action scenario is expected to be negligible. 

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, implementing MARPOL 73/78. Within MARPOL Annex V, Regulations for the 

Control of Pollution by Garbage from Ships, as implemented by 33 CFR part 151, are requirements 

designed to protect the marine environment from various types of garbage generated on board vessels. In 

addition, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. 

The guidance would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012).

Certain types of trash and debris produced by the proposed G&G activities (Chapter 3.5.1.7) could 

be accidentally lost overboard, with subsequent effects to smalltooth sawfish. Plastic lines, cables, rope, 

and other marine debris generated by survey vessels, if accidentally released, could impact individual 

smalltooth sawfish. Because of their long, toothed rostrum, smalltooth sawfish are susceptible to 

entanglement in various discarded material (Seitz and Poulakis, 2006). With compliance with existing 

Federal regulations, the amount of trash and debris dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental 

loss of trash and debris is anticipated, some of which could sink to the seafloor. With disposal restrictions 

in place to reduce trash and debris, coupled with the fact that smalltooth sawfish are very sparsely 

distributed in the AOI, impacts to smalltooth sawfish from trash and debris would be negligible. Trash 

and debris would not be a concern for shortnose sturgeon or Atlantic sturgeon. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are grab and core sampling; 

placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; COST and shallow test well 

drilling; and placement of anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10). Grab and core samples are expected 

to disturb a total of approximately 11 ha (27 ac) of seafloor within the AOI. Total seafloor area disturbed 

by individual COST and shallow test wells would vary with equipment and water depth but is projected to 

be about 16 ha (40 ac). A maximum of 38 meteorological buoys may be placed on the seafloor in the 

AOI to support G&G activities. Seafloor disturbance caused by anchors and anchor sweep is expected to 

be about 129 ha (319 ac). Presently, no estimates are available for seafloor disturbance by placement of 

nodes, cables, and sensors that support ocean cable, nodal, vertical cable, VSP, CSEM, and MT surveys 

(Chapter 3.5.1.8). Collectively, these activities would disturb a very small fraction of the seafloor in the 

AOI, and although a few disturbances would be permanent, most would be temporary. For the threatened 

and endangered fishes, seafloor disturbance could affect these bottom-feeding species – smalltooth 

sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon – by potentially displacing individuals from feeding 

areas and by reducing the available benthic prey organisms. These potential impacts to bottom feeders 

and their prey would be negligible for smalltooth sawfish and shortnose sturgeon because of their scarcity 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-147

in the AOI. Atlantic sturgeon is more prevalent in the shelf waters of the AOI than smalltooth sawfish or 

shortnose sturgeon, but the small areal extent of seafloor disturbance is unlikely to negatively influence 

habitat use by this species. Accordingly, impacts on Atlantic sturgeon are expected to be negligible. 

Drilling Discharges

Drilling discharges from COST wells associated with G&G activities include drilling fluids (WBF) 

and cuttings drilled with both WBF and SBF (Chapter 3.5.1.9). Oil-based drilling fluids (OBFs) have 

the potential to be used where additional lubricity would be needed; however, OBFs are likely to be 

replaced by SBF in deepwater drilling because of the many advantageous features of SBF (Neff et al., 

2000). WBF are used in shallow wells or the shallow segments of deeper wells, whereas SBFs are used 

only on deeper wells or well segments. WBFs are discharged on site from near the ocean surface along 

with the drill cuttings. SBFs are recovered, reused, and recycled; cuttings generated during drilling using 

SBFs are discharged, typically with small amounts of adhering SBF whose discharge concentrations are 

regulated by permit. These materials would cover the seafloor around the well, with deposition thickness 

and areal extent determined by discharge volume, water depth, and prevailing currents. Drilling activities 

expected to occur in the AOI under Alternative A project that the total volumes generated from drilling 

one to three COST wells would range from 2,000 to 6,000 bbl of cuttings and from 8,350 to 25,050 bbl of 

drilling fluid. The primary environmental concerns related to the discharge of fluids and cuttings are 

increased water column turbidity and accumulation of drilling muds and cuttings on the seafloor. The 

benthic deposition of drilling muds and cuttings can increase the organic load of the benthos and promote 

anoxic conditions. Drilling discharges can also alter the ambient sediment grain size and introduce trace 

metals and organics to benthic sediments. Drilling muds and cuttings deposition would result in localized 

changes to the benthic infaunal community, including infaunal species important to benthic feeding 

fishes. Loss of benthic prey is important to bottom-feeding fishes such as smalltooth sawfish, shortnose 

sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon. Elevated water column turbidity can affect fish eggs and larvae and 

possibly the feeding of mid-water species.

Because of the small seafloor area affected by drilling discharges under Alternative A, impacts to 

bottom-feeding threatened and endangered fishes are expected to be negligible. 

4.2.6.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill volume ranging 

from 1.2 to 7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean surface would disperse and weather. Volatile 

components of the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel used for operation of survey vessels is light and 

would float on the ocean surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel 

components to adhere to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink. Particulate 

matter contaminated with diesel fuel would eventually reach the benthos either within or outside the AOI, 

depending upon spill location, water depth, ambient currents, and sinking rate. Because of their life 

histories, none of the threatened or endangered fish species would have sensitive eggs or larvae in the 

water column of the AOI where they would be exposed to accidentally spilled diesel fuel. Therefore, the 

expected impact of an accidental diesel fuel spill is expected to be negligible for all five of these species.

4.2.6.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 and includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to affect 

threatened and endangered fish species include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including 

underwater noise from sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources and vessel and equipment noise; 

(2) vessel traffic; (3) seafloor disturbance; (4) trash and debris; and (5) a risk of a crude oil spill from a 
4-148 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

well blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental 

events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). 

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, seven sources of potential 

impact to threatened and endangered fish species have been identified in association with proposed G&G

activities, including (1) active acoustic sound sources; (2) vessel and equipment noise; (3) vessel traffic; 

(4) seafloor disturbance; (5) drilling discharges; (6) trash and debris; and (7) accidental releases. Impact 

analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.6.2 and 4.2.6.3 determined that activities projected to occur under 

Alternative A would result in negligible to minor impacts to threatened and endangered fish species, with 

the level of impact dependent upon the specific IPF and the particular species of concern being 

considered. The following analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting 

synergistically with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a 

significant impact.

As mentioned previously, among the three listed fish species (smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, 

and Atlantic sturgeon), only the Atlantic sturgeon occurs with any regularity within the AOI.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

Long-term noise data for the AOI have not been published. For the purposes of this analysis, and in 

consideration of the documented increases in marine transportation volumes along the U.S. Atlantic 

Coast, it is assumed that underwater noise from vessel traffic and other anthropogenic sources within the 

AOI is increasing. Most ambient noise is broadband and encompasses virtually the entire frequency

spectrum, with vessel traffic recognized as a major contributor to ocean noise in the low frequency bands 

between 5 and 500 Hz. Naturally occurring noise (e.g., spray and bubbles from breaking waves) are also 

a major contributor to ambient noise in the 500- to 100,000-Hz range. Sources of active acoustic sound 

within the cumulative activities scenario would include sonars and explosions, both from military 

exercises within multiple operational areas. No significant impacts to ESA-listed fish have been 

identified in association with AFTT activities and their acoustic sources (USDON, 2012), as outlined in 

Chapter 3.6.7. 

Underwater noise from proposed G&G activities (i.e., active acoustic sound sources) has been shown 

to cause a negligible to minor impact to threatened and endangered fish species (Chapter 4.2.6.2). 

Active acoustic noise sources including both airgun and electromechanical sources and vessel and 

equipment noise from the proposed action would result in a minor incremental increase in impacts to 

threatened and endangered fish species under the cumulative scenario.

Smalltooth Sawfish

There is no specific information on the effects of noise on the ecology and behavior of smalltooth 

sawfish, but it can be assumed that some of the potential effects discussed for fishes in general and 

presented in Appendix J would apply. The G&G activities described in the proposed scenario such as 

seismic airgun surveys, vessel traffic, well drilling, and dredging would all contribute to the cumulative 

noise within the AOI (Chapter 3.5.1). As discussed previously, because of the relative rarity of 

smalltooth sawfish in the AOI, exposure to noise levels under Alternative A over the course of the 

Programmatic EIS period are expected to result in negligible impacts to this species. Minor incremental 

increases in ambient noise levels under the cumulative scenario are not expected to result in significant 

impacts to smalltooth sawfish.

Shortnose Sturgeon

Shortnose sturgeon may be adversely affected by cumulative noise in the AOI, but specific details for 

this species are lacking (Appendix J). The proposed G&G activities scenario for the 2012-2020 period is 

expected to contribute to the cumulative noise in the AOI. Non-G&G activity, especially vessel traffic, is 

expected to continue to increase incrementally. Because individuals rarely occur in AOI waters, noise 

impacts on the shortnose sturgeon are expected to be negligible. Minor incremental increases in ambient 

noise levels under the cumulative scenario are not expected to result in significant impacts to shortnose 

sturgeon.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-149

Atlantic Sturgeon

Unlike smalltooth sawfish and shortnose sturgeon, the Atlantic sturgeon does regularly occur in some 

areas of the AOI (Chapter 4.2.6.2). Atlantic sturgeon wintering in shelf waters of the AOI may be 

affected by cumulative sounds contributed by G&G and non-G&G operations. Cumulative impacts

resulting from increased ambient noise would include temporary hearing loss, masking of relevant 

sounds, and potential behavioral modifications. The impacts of noise attributed to G&G activities under 

Alternative A scenario are expected to be minor. Minor incremental increases in ambient noise levels 

under the cumulative scenario are not expected to result in significant impacts to Atlantic sturgeon.

Trash and Debris

The accidental release of trash and debris can potentially occur from any of the 10 activities identified 

in the cumulative impacts scenario. Vessel operators would be required to comply with Federal 

regulations, which include the requirements of MARPOL 73/78, including Annex V. Companies 

operating offshore have developed and implemented trash and debris reduction and improved handling 

practices over the last several years to reduce the amount of offshore trash that could potentially be lost to 

the marine environment. With compliance with Federal regulations, which include the requirements of 

MARPOL, the amount of trash and debris intentionally dumped offshore would be very limited, and only 

accidental loss of trash and debris is expected. Trash and debris, particularly ropes, lines, and wire, would 

primarily affect smalltooth sawfish (Chapter 4.2.6.2) via potential entanglement with the rostrum. Under 

the cumulative scenario, fishing line from commercial and recreational sources is more likely to be a 

source of entanglement. Smalltooth sawfish is relatively uncommon in the AOI, which further reduces 

the change of interactions with trash and debris. Impacts to smalltooth sawfish are expected to be 

negligible. Negligible incremental increases in trash and debris under the cumulative scenario are not 

expected to result in significant impacts to smalltooth sawfish.

Seafloor Disturbance

Seafloor disturbance can damage or alter hard or soft demersal habitats important to threatened and 

endangered fish species (Chapter 4.2.6.2). Non-G&G activities in the AOI known to disturb the seafloor 

include geosequestration, commercial fishing (bottom trawling and dredging), dredged material disposal, 

LNG terminal placement, and military range complexes and civilian space program use. 

Geosequestration involves drilling wells, placing anchors, and laying pipelines and cables on the seafloor. 

Currently there are no geosequestration facilities planned for the AOI and none expected in the 

foreseeable future. Commercial fishing with bottom trawls or dredges can inflict considerable damage to 

demersal habitats. The extent of the seafloor disturbance caused by bottom tending fisheries specifically 

within the AOI is difficult to estimate but is presumed to be appreciable. Impacts to benthic communities

caused by commercial and recreational fishing activities have been estimated to affect approximately 

53 percent of the world’s continental shelf (Watling and Norse, 1998). Use of bottom-tending gear is not 

expected to increase for the 2012-2020 duration of the Programmatic EIS. Placement of LNG terminals 

would involve seafloor disturbance; however, no activity is expected during the Programmatic EIS time 

period. Disposal of dredged material in offshore waters can potentially smother demersal biota. The AOI 

currently has 13 designated offshore dredged material disposal sites from Virginia south to Florida 

(Chapter 3.6.9). These sites are expected to be used at current levels for the 2012-2020 period. Military 

range complexes and civilian space program use could involve placement of buoys, or other equipment 

that could potentially disturb the seafloor.

Under Alternative A, impacts from seafloor disturbance would be negligible for smalltooth sawfish

and shortnose sturgeon because of their scarcity in the AOI. Impacts on Atlantic sturgeon would be 

negligible because of the relatively small footprint of sampling and bottom tending operations. Seafloor 

disturbance from the proposed action would result in a negligible incremental increase in total area of 

seafloor disturbed under the cumulative scenario, with a negligible incremental increase in impacts from 

seafloor disturbance to threatened and endangered fish species.
4-150 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Smalltooth Sawfish

Installation of anchors, jack-up rigs, and other structures associated with G&G activity would disturb 

the seafloor, generate turbidity, and crush benthos, as detailed in Chapter 4.2.6.2. Smalltooth sawfish is 

a demersal feeding species that could be adversely affected by seafloor disturbance. Seafloor disturbance 

could result in individuals being displaced from staging or feeding areas in shelf waters of the AOI. The 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is outside of the AOI; however, adults are present (very rarely) in 

inner shelf waters, with the greatest likelihood of occurrence offshore of Florida and Georgia. For 

seafloor-disturbing activities under Alternative A, impacts on smalltooth sawfish are negligible. 

Negligible incremental increases in areas affected by seafloor disturbance under the cumulative scenario 

are not expected to result in significant impacts to smalltooth sawfish.

Shortnose Sturgeon

Shortnose sturgeon is a bottom-feeding demersal species also subject to the effects of seafloor 

disturbance from G&G and non-G&G activities. Shortnose sturgeon rarely move from coastal rivers into 

the AOI, and there is no indication that this pattern would change over the 2012-2020 time frame. Thus, 

although bottom-tending activities could adversely affect individual shortnose sturgeon, the chance of an 

encounter with such activities is very low because the amount of seafloor disturbance from G&G 

activities is small fraction of the total seafloor in the AOI. In addition, shortnose sturgeon occur only 

sparsely in AOI waters. For this reason, impacts of seafloor disturbance on shortnose sturgeon are 

expected to be negligible. Negligible incremental increases in areas affected by seafloor disturbance 

under the cumulative scenario are not expected to result in significant impacts to shortnose sturgeon.

Atlantic Sturgeon

Seafloor-disturbing activities would primarily affect adult Atlantic sturgeon during cooler months of 

the year when they move from coastal rivers into shelf waters. Adult Atlantic sturgeon can be expected to 

move out of the area of installation activity. The disruption of benthic invertebrate assemblages can 

indirectly affect bottom-feeding Atlantic sturgeon by reducing a small fraction of the available 

invertebrate prey in localized areas. The projected activity scenario (Chapter 3.5) shows that most 

G&G-related activities that disturb the seafloor do so on a limited spatial scale and would not increase 

incrementally throughout the period of the Programmatic EIS. Non-G&G activities that would 

potentially damage the seafloor in the AOI include geosequestration, commercial and recreational fishing, 

LNG terminals, and military range complexes and civilian space program use. Of these, only commercial 

and recreational fishing (specifically commercial trawling and dredging) pose an appreciable threat to 

seafloor condition. LNG terminals and geosequestration facilities would not be important because neither 

facility type is planned for the AOI in the foreseeable future. Military range complexes and civilian space 

program use would result in small-scale impacts to the seafloor through anchoring or placement of 

equipment in localized areas. Fishing with bottom tending gear and military operations in the AOI are 

expected to continue at present levels through the proposed 2012-2020 activity scenario for this 

Programmatic EIS. Impacts of seafloor disturbance on Atlantic sturgeon are expected to be negligible. 

Negligible incremental increases in impacts to threatened and endangered fish species (i.e., smalltooth 

sawfish) from trash and debris are expected under the cumulative scenario.

Accidental Fuel Spills

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-151

realized, the severity of impacts to listed or candidate fish species would vary depending on the location 

and size of the spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts 

would be analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted by an operator. 

Potential impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be examined in the EA 

prior to any wells being drilled. A project-specific EA would require an analysis of site-specific 

information regarding listed and candidate fish species and mitigation measures taken to minimize 

impacts from drilling activities and potential accidental crude oil spills. In addition, with the required 

mitigation measures in place and with oversight of these activities by the BSEE, an accidental crude oil 

spill from an exploratory well is not anticipated; however, a spill still could occur. With these mitigation 

measures in place, the impacts to listed and candidate fish species from exploratory drilling operations

would be expected to range from negligible to minor depending on location.

A sizeable amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including high 

levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing activity would also 

contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and 

subsequent loss of fuel. The cumulative impacts associated with an accidental fuel spill arising from a 

vessel collision under the cumulative scenario are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

Chapter 3.5.2.1 presents an accidental spill scenario for G&G activities that assumes a diesel fuel 

spill ranging from 1.2 to 7.1 bbl. This scenario also assumes that spilled diesel fuel would evaporate, 

disperse, and break down in the short term, indicating that in the open waters of the AOI incremental 

increases in spilled fuel would be minor. Non-G&G operations that would potentially spill fuel through 

vessel collisions or accidents are geosequestration, commercial and recreational fishing, military activity, 

and dredged material disposal. The greatest risk of a fuel spill, such as the one portrayed in the accidental 

scenario, is to fishes at various life stages that occur near or at the surface. Direct exposure would only 

occur in the water column near the discharge point, thus pelagic adults and planktonic eggs and larvae are 

most susceptible. Smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon do not have pelagic life 

stages in AOI waters; therefore, the expected impact of an accidental diesel fuel spill is expected to be 

negligible for all three of these species. Negligible incremental increases in impacts to threatened and 

endangered fish species are expected from accidental fuel spills from G&G activities under the 

cumulative scenario.

4.2.7. Commercial Fisheries

4.2.7.1. Description of the Affected Environment

The AOI supports regionally and nationally important commercial fisheries. In 2012, total 

commercial landings within the AOI were 294,094 metric tons (mt), which were valued at approximately 

$432.2 million (USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). Southwick Associates, Inc. (SAI, 2006) reported that, in 2004, 

commercial finfish fisheries in the seven coastal states adjacent to the AOI supported 5,700 jobs. 

Commercial fisheries support not only numerous directly related jobs (fishing crews) but also many 

indirectly related industries such as seafood distributors, restaurants, and suppliers of commercial fishing

gear.

Several ports within the AOI have among the highest commercial fishing revenues in the U.S. In 

2012, Hampton Roads, Virginia, ranked 13th in overall commercial fishing value at $64.1 million, 

followed by Reedville, Virginia (ranked 31st; $34.5 million), Wanchese-Stumpy Point, North Carolina 

(ranked 55th; $21 million), Mayport, Florida (ranked 62nd; $15.4 million), Beaufort-Morehead City, 

North Carolina (ranked 76th; $11.5 million), and Cape Canaveral, Florida (ranked 93rd; $7.7 million) 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). 

Because the fishing industry is so integrated with local business, these commercial fishing ports often 

support entire coastal fishing communities. Fisheries within the AOI support 108 fishing communities 

located along the coast from Delaware to Florida (USDOC, NMFS, 2009c). In the Mid-Atlantic region 

(Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, excluding New York and New Jersey), NMFS identified 

26 commercial and recreational fishing communities in 2006. Of the total, 12 were located in Virginia, 

9 in Maryland, and 5 in Delaware (USDOC, NMFS, 2009c). In the South Atlantic region (North Carolina 

to Florida east coast), NMFS indicates there were 82 commercial and recreational fishing communities in 
4-152 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2006 (USDOC, NMFS, 2009c). These included 26 fishing communities in North Carolina, 24 in Florida 

(east coast), 19 in South Carolina, and 13 in Georgia.

4.2.7.1.1. Commercial Landings

Table 4-28 shows commercial landings in states within the AOI (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Florida east coast) during 2008-2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 

2013a). Overall, total annual commercial landings during this period were stable with no significant 

trend. In 2012, commercial landings in Virginia generated the most revenue ($175.6 million), followed 

by Maryland ($77.8 million), North Carolina ($72.9 million), Florida east coast ($57.7 million), South 

Carolina ($23.8 million), Georgia ($16.3 million), and Delaware ($7.8 million) (USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). 

Total commercial landings in Virginia during 2008-2012 ranged from 191,901 mt ($146.6 million) in 

2008 to 209,536 mt ($175.6 million) in 2012, with a mean of 210,136 mt ($169.6 million). In Delaware, 

the state with the least amount of commercial landings, total commercial landings during 2008-2012 

ranged from 2,134.7 mt ($6.9 million) in 2008 to 2,376.6 mt ($7.8 million) in 2012, with a mean of 

2,276.3 mt ($7.4 million).

Figure 4-21 shows monthly variations in total (combined) commercial landings in 2012 for the seven 

states within the AOI (USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). Commercial landings and the associated value increased 

steadily from winter (February) to late summer and peaked in August (56,006 mt).

Commercial fisheries in the AOI target a variety of fish and invertebrate species in both State and 

Federal waters. It is important to emphasize that landings data do not indicate actual areas where 

particular species were caught. To accurately interpret fishing activity within the AOI from landings data 

for the coastal states, inferences must be made using knowledge of broad habitat use by species 

represented in the data set. For example, landings data indicate that blue crab is an important fishery 

species in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina, but blue crabs live primarily in inshore 

waters and would not be part of the fisheries for the AOI. The eastern oyster provides a similar example 

of an inshore species making significant contribution to landings data from Delaware, Maryland, and 

Virginia that should not be used to characterize fisheries in the AOI. Table 4-29 lists species inferred to 

be important to the fisheries of the coastal states and the AOI not necessarily based on their ranking in the 

landings data.

Commercial fishing landings within the AOI vary with distance from shore (Table 4-30). According 

to USDOC, NMFS (2013b), in 2012 most of the commercial fishing landings in Delaware, Maryland, and 

North Carolina were in State waters (4.8 km [3 mi] from shore), while landings in Virginia and Florida 

(east coast) were primarily in Federal waters (4.8-322 km [3-200 mi] from shore). South Carolina had 

approximately the same landings (by weight) in State and Federal waters.

4.2.7.1.2. Commercial Fishing Gears

The main commercial fishing gears used along the Atlantic east coast are pots/traps, dredges, trawls, 

longlines (bottom and pelagic), gillnets, purse seines, and pound nets. These gears are described below.

• Pot or Traps are rectangular, square, or cylindrical enclosed devices with one or more 

gates or entrances set on the bottom to target benthic fishes and invertebrates such as 

lobsters, conch (Strombidae), black sea bass, and red deep-sea crabs (Chaceon 

quinquedens). Pots/traps are usually marked at the surface with a buoy (float) that is 

attached to the pot or trap by a rope. This type of gear is usually set in string near 

natural or artificial structure or hard bottom. Pots are connected by “mainlines” that 

either float off the bottom or sink to the bottom (Stevenson et al., 2004).

• Dredges are a steel frame box or bag-shaped device used to target benthic sessile 

species such as bivalve mollusks (clams, oysters, scallops, and mussels). Dredges are 

towed behind a fishing vessel along the bottom at about 2.5 kn (4.6 km/ hr); the 

vessel slows down as the dredge collects clams. The typical dredge is 3.7-m (12-ft) 

wide and about 6.7-m (22-ft) long and uses pressurized water jets to wash clams out 

of the bottom. The water jets penetrate the sediment in front of the dredge to a depth 

of about 20-25 cm (8-10 in), which dislodges the clams. On the leading bottom edge 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-153

of the dredge there is a “cutting bar” opening that guides the clams into the body of 

the dredge, which is sometimes referred to as “the cage” (Stevenson et al., 2004).

• Trawls are large bag-shape nets constructed with natural fibers or synthetic materials 

that are rectangular or polygon in shape (mouth openings). Trawls are towed at 

specific water depths (surface, mid-water, or bottom), depending on the target 

species. Trawls are classified by their function, bag construction, or method of 

maintaining the mouth opening (Stevenson et al., 2004). Bottom trawls are designed 

to be towed along the seafloor to catch a variety of demersal fish and invertebrate 

species, e.g., shrimps, Atlantic mackerel, summer flounder, black sea bass, scup, 

Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), and winter flounder. Mid-water trawls 

are designed to catch pelagic species in the water column such as squids 

(Chuenpagdee et al., 2003).

• Longlines typically consist of 1.6-64.4 km (1-40 mi) of monofilament line that has 

baited hooks (gangions) attached at regular predetermined intervals. The mainline is 

attached to a series of floats, highflyers, and radio beacons at regular intervals. 

Longlines are classified by where the gear is set in the water column. Longline gear 

is either set at the surface or on the bottom. Longlines either drift with the currents or 

are stationary (anchored to the bottom) and are used to target benthic (e.g., tilefish 

and large coastal sharks), coastal pelagic (e.g., dolphin and wahoo), or pelagic 

(e.g., tunas, swordfish, or pelagic sharks) species (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003; 

Stevenson et al., 2004). 

• Gillnets are a large wall of rectangular panel netting constructed of monofilament or 

synthetic materials that is suspended vertically in the water column; gillnets can be 

set to suspend at the surface, mid-water, or near the bottom. Gillnets are equipped 

with floats at the top and lead weights along the bottom. Bottom gillnets are 

anchored or staked in position, and surface gillnets drift with the currents and wind. 

Drift gillnets are used to target Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda), weakfish, and bluefish, 

while stake gillnets are used to target Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic croaker, butterfish, 

spot, northern kingfish, bluefish, weakfish, and smooth dogfish (Chuenpagdee et al., 

2003; Stevenson et al., 2004).

• Purse seines are a type of net constructed with natural fibers or synthetic materials 

that are used to encircle a school of fish. Once the net has captured a school of fish, 

it is then cinched. Purse seines are used to target Atlantic menhaden and Atlantic 

herring (Clupea harengus), and also sometimes bluefish in nearshore waters 

(Chuenpagdee et al., 2003).

• Pound nets are a fixed entrapment gear constructed of netting that is attached to piles 

or stakes driven into the seafloor. Pound nets consist of three sections: a leader (net 

body or crib with a netting floor and open top), at least one heart leading into the crib, 

and the pound. The leader or leaders can be as long as 400 m (1,300 ft); the leader is 

used to direct fish into the heart(s) of the net. The heart section then funnels fish into 

the pound section to prevent escapement. The pound holds fish until the net is 

emptied. In general, these nets are used in shallow waters <6.1 m (20 ft) deep. 

Pound nets are used to catch a wide variety of inshore finfishes, such as striped bass, 

bluefish, catfish, croaker, flounder, menhaden, perch, spot, weakfish, and river 

herring (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003; Stevenson et al., 2004).

In addition, hook-and-line is another type of commercial fishing gear used in the AOI, but it is 

relatively important only in Florida and South Carolina in terms of landings and value (USDOC, NMFS, 

2013a).

The landings and value in the AOI during 2012 attributable to each of the seven principal gear types 

are shown in Figure 4-22 (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b). Overall, pots/traps and dredges accounted for more 

than 50 percent of the total value. However, most of the landings from pots and traps were contributed by 

blue crabs taken primarily within bay waters, which are not within the AOI.

Excluding pots and traps, commercial landings with dredge gear represented 33 percent of the total 

value at $221 million. Dredge gear was used to land various types of valuable mollusks, e.g., clams, sea 
4-154 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

scallops, and oysters, from North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware; however, 

91 percent ($50.8 million) of the revenue was associated with landings in Virginia (USDOC, NMFS, 

2013a). 

The third greatest revenue associated with a commercial fishing gear in the AOI was from otter 

trawls. Otter trawls were used to land a variety of species (e.g., shrimp, fish, crab, and scallop) 

throughout the AOI from Florida to Maryland. Overall, fisheries landed with otter trawls represented 

13 percent ($58.2 million) of the total value, with most (35%) of the revenue attributed to shrimp ($20.4

million) in Florida (USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). 

Purse seines were another type of gear that was used to land valuable fisheries. Although most 

landings and revenue were associated with Virginia (98.9% or $30.5 million), purse seines were also used 

off Florida on a limited basis, with landings of 0.5 mt. In general, purse seine gear is used to land only a 

single species, Atlantic menhaden. In comparison to the other primary gears used in the AOI, purse 

seines represented the largest percentage of the total commercial landings at 59 percent but contributed 

only about 7 percent of the revenue (USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). 

Excluding inshore trot lines in Maryland (outside of the AOI), another commercial gear type that 

generated a relatively large amount of revenue was longlines. Of the total commercial landings for the 

seven primary gears, longline landings and associated revenue accounted for 0.9 and 0.5 percent, 

respectively. Longline gear was used to land an assortment of sharks, reef fishes, and coastal and highly 

migratory species from Florida to Maryland, with most of the revenue associated with landings in Florida 

(48% or $8.7 million) and North Carolina (42% or $7.6 million) (USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). 

Landings associated with pound nets represented 2.5 percent of the total revenue, even though this 

gear was used only in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to land a variety of fishes, e.g., striped 

bass, bluefish, and weakfish. Overall, most landings and revenue were evenly distributed between 

Maryland and Virginia, at around 36 percent and 46 percent, respectively (USDOC, NMFS, 2013a). It 

should be noted that pound net gear is a fixed, stationary, and semi-permanent (April-November) gear 

that is set inshore in shallow bay waters (3.6-6.1 m [12-20 ft]), which are not in the AOI.

4.2.7.1.3. Commercial Fishing Locations and Seasons

State and Federal agencies (NMFS and regional FMCs) manage fisheries by focusing on either 

individual species or mixed species groups having similar life-history characteristics and habitat-use 

patterns. The largest group managed by the SAFMC is the snapper-grouper complex, which includes 

73 species. In general, many of the species grouped together by the SAFMC and the MAFMC are usually 

taken by commercial fisheries at similar locations (i.e., habitats), seasons, and sometimes with the same 

gear types. Regardless of what type of fishing gear is used to target or incidentally take a particular 

species, commercial fisheries within the AOI can be generally categorized into four zones according to 

where species can be found in the water column and distance from shore. In general, these zones are

• benthic: inshore (~5 km [3 mi]) to offshore (~32 km [20 mi]); species found within 

bottom sediments or along the seafloor;

• demersal: inshore (~5 km [3 mi]) to offshore (~32 km [20 mi]); species associated 

with the bottom (1-2 m [3.3-6.6 ft] above the seafloor) but that are not found within 

the bottom sediments;

• coastal pelagic: mid-water and surface, ~8-32 km (5-20 mi) from shore; and

• pelagic: mid-water (mesopelagic) and surface (epipelagic), >64 km (40 mi) from 

shore.

For example, commercial fishermen harvest fishes in the commercial snapper-grouper complex 

(demersal species) using four types of fishing gears (hook-and-line, traps, trawls, and bottom longline), 

but these types of fishes, classified under the “demersal” group, are usually associated with reefs (natural 

and artificial), live bottom, rocky hard bottom, ledges, limestone outcroppings, or some other type of hard 

bottom community (SAFMC, 1983, 2011a). Another example of a demersal species (reef-dwelling) in 

the snapper-grouper complex that is associated with hard bottom is the black sea bass; commercial 

fisheries harvest black sea bass with traps/pots, hook-and-line, and bottom longlines.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-155

Although the terminology and definitions for benthic and demersal species has often been used 

synonymously in much of the scientific literature, a distinction was made for the purpose of this 

assessment.

Benthic Fisheries

Benthic species are those species (fishes and invertebrates) classified as either found within the 

bottom sediment substrates (e.g., clams and scallops) or along the seafloor. Many of these benthic species 

are mollusks and crustaceans, but they also can include skates, rays, and fishes such as summer, witch, 

and southern flounders. Depending on the species, benthic species are found either in soft bottom habitats 

(e.g., shrimps, clams, and scallops) or hard bottom substrates. Many of the commercial benthic fisheries

(e.g., golden tilefish, scallops, and clams) are found in the northern section (North Carolina to Delaware) 

of the AOI, but there are important benthic commercial fisheries (shrimp) in the southern section (Georgia 

and Florida). The horseshoe crab fishery is primarily conducted in the Delaware Bay region with trawls 

and dredge gear. The fishery is conducted year-round, prohibited only from May-June, except in 

Maryland, which recently imposed a closed season from January-June for the next 2 years. In general, 

horseshoe crabs are found in water depths of less than 30 m (98 ft); they can be found in bays and along 

coastal nearshore areas.

The sea scallop fishery is among the most valuable commercial fisheries along the Atlantic Coast; it 

is found in coarse sand, gravel, and cobble sediments at depths ranging from 18 to 111 m (59 to 364 ft) 

(MAFMC and NEFMC, 2007). Although the majority (63%) of the scallop landings occur outside of the 

AOI (MAFMC and NEFMC, 2007), some commercial landings do occur in the northern section of the 

AOI off Virginia through Delaware. The primary commercial fishing gears are scallop dredges and 

trawls. The fishery is conducted year-round, but many of the landings in Virginia occurred from 

March-August in 2009 (USDOC, NMFS, 2011k). Orphanides and Magnusson (2007) reported that the 

distribution of effort in days fished and number of hauls relative to bottom depth for bottom and 

mid-water trawl fisheries was in waters from 0 to 50 m (0 to 164 ft) in 1996, but it is now primarily from 

50 to 100 m (164 to 328 ft); 90 percent of the fishing effort was concentrated where the bottom slope was 

0°-0.5° (Orphanides and Magnusson, 2007). The fishing season is year-round, but many of the landings 

occur during the winter and spring.

Another important benthic commercial fishery is the summer flounder fishery. Summer flounder are 

found in bottom sediments and are usually taken with trawl gear. The summer flounder fishery is 

conducted year-round, but summer flounder migrate from nearshore to offshore during the winter, and 

some movement occurs from northern to southern waters, depending on the water temperature. As such, 

the commercial fishery adjusts accordingly. The commercial season is generally set by the availability of 

annual commercial quota by individual state, so the commercial fishing season in each state can vary 

from year to year. In 2009, most of the summer flounder commercial landings in Virginia occurred from 

December to March (USDOC, NMFS, 2011k).

The South Atlantic commercial fishery for shrimp is among the most important fisheries in the 

region; the majority of the commercial landings occur within nearshore waters. The commercial fishery 

for various species of shrimp is conducted year-round in the southeast. In 2009 in Florida, the primary 

commercial landings of white shrimp occurred in January, while rock shrimp landings peaked in July 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2011k).

Demersal Fisheries

Demersal species are those species that are associated with the bottom (e.g., snapper and groupers) 

but that are not found within the bottom sediments. In general, demersal species are usually more mobile 

than benthic species and display seasonal movements. In the South Atlantic region, commercial 

fishermen target hard bottom demersal species (snapper-grouper complex) at nearshore (37-73 m 

[121-240 ft]) to offshore (91-219 m [299-719 ft]) hard bottom locations. Commercial fishermen often 

target black sea bass in much shallower waters (12-30 m [39-98 ft]) during the winter (SAFMC, 1983, 

2011a). Black sea bass are mostly caught with traps, whereas snappers and groupers are caught with 

hook-and-line and bottom longline gear. There are many hard bottom and reef communities scattered 

throughout the SAB (Cape Canaveral, Florida, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina) that are used by 

commercial fishermen to target reef fishes, such as those in the snapper-grouper complex; most hard 
4-156 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

bottom communities occur in Federal waters. Although most reef communities are found south of North 

Carolina, there are also numerous ledges, rocks, and outcropping between North Carolina and Delaware 

that are used by commercial fishermen to target demersal species such as black sea bass. In the South 

Atlantic region, the commercial fishing season for demersal species (snapper-grouper complex) is 

determined by Federal regulations that are complex and constantly evolving. Depending on the species, 

there are various fishing seasonal regulations and annual commercial quotas; thus, the fishery can 

temporarily close at different times each year. For example, there is an annual seasonal closure for the 

recreational and commercial harvest of all shallow-water groupers (gag grouper, black grouper, red 

grouper, scamp, rock hind, red hind, coney, graysby, yellowfin grouper, yellowmouth grouper, and tiger 

grouper) from January-April (SAFMC, 2011a). Another example is the recent (January 31, 2011) closure 

prohibiting the harvest and retention of snowy grouper, blueline tilefish, yellowedge grouper, misty 

grouper, queen snapper, and silk snapper beyond 73-m (240-ft) depths in Federal waters of the South 

Atlantic (Federal Register, 2010i). 

The bottom longline shark fishery is another important commercial fishery (demersal) in the South 

Atlantic region that targets small and large coastal sharks along the coastline within the AOI. In the 

South Atlantic (Florida to Virginia) during 1994 through 2003, and more recently in 2008, commercial 

fishermen primarily targeted sharks at water depths ranging from 20 to 30 m (66 to 98 ft) (40%) and 30 to 

40 m (98 to 131 ft) (24%) (Hale et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2009). Morgan et al. (2009) reported that 

commercial fishing effort for sharks with bottom longline gear (1994−2003) was distributed along the 

coastline (<100 m [328 ft]) within the AOI (Virginia to Florida), but most of the fishing effort was off 

North Carolina (Cape Hatteras) and Florida (Daytona Beach). Like the snapper-grouper complex, the 

commercial fishing season for the bottom longline shark fishery is determined by Federal regulations that 

are adaptive and frequently changing. The commercial fishing seasons for all shark species generally 

opens on or around January 1 every year, contingent upon available quota. The season does not open 

until NMFS publishes in the Federal Register the opening date and available quota. Once NMFS 

estimates that 80 percent of an individual species/complex’s quota has been caught, the season is closed 

within 5 days of filing with the Federal Register (USDOC, NMFS, 2010d).

Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fisheries

Commercial species classified as coastal pelagic species are those species that are usually found in 

nearshore marine environments (surface to mid-water [0-20 m; 0-66 ft]) within the continental shelf. 

Coastal pelagic species can display seasonal and annual movements along the coastline, but they do not 

make transoceanic migrations. Seasonal migrations are generally triggered by changes in water 

temperature, so in winter these species are found in the southern part of their range and in summer in the 

northern part of their range (SAFMC, 1983). Coastal pelagic species in the South Atlantic and 

Mid-Atlantic regions are Spanish and king mackerels, bluefish, cobia, little tunny, and bluefish. In 

general, coastal pelagic species are found from North Carolina to Florida, but they can also be found 

north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, depending on the water temperatures. In the northern section of 

the AOI, bluefish are an important commercial fishery. Prime fishing locations within the AOI are in the 

coastal waters off Florida where king and Spanish mackerels are the target species. The primary 

commercial fishing gears that fishermen use to harvest coastal pelagic species are gillnets, trammel nets, 

automatic (electric) reel, handline, and hook-and-line (trolling). Commercial fishing for coastal pelagic 

species is conducted along coastal beaches and is sometimes associated with bottom habitats such as 

artificial reefs and hard bottom features. In addition to the closed areas that are described below, the 

fishing season is open year-round in all locations, but the fishery does close according to the commercial 

quota limits (annual or trip) for individual species. In the Mid-Atlantic region, squid and butterfish are 

other important commercial fisheries that are managed in conjunction with Atlantic mackerel. Although 

many landings occur outside of the AOI (New Jersey to Massachusetts), some landings occur in the 

northern section of the AOI (Virginia to Delaware). The primary commercial fishing gear to target these 

schooling species is bottom or mid-water otter trawls. Commercial fishing is year-round (butterfish), but 

the prime fishing season for Atlantic mackerel is from January to April and from October to April for 

squid (MAFMC and NEFMC, 2007).

Another coastal pelagic species, Atlantic menhaden, dominates commercial landings in Virginia and 

contributes significantly to overall commercial landings in Maryland and Delaware. Commercial 

landings occur year-round, with most of the landings in Virginia and Maryland during 2009 occurring 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-157

from June through October (USDOC, NMFS, 2011k). The primary commercial fishing grounds are 

inshore waters such as the Virginia State waters of Chesapeake Bay (Smith, 1999), but Atlantic menhaden 

are also caught in nearshore waters (0-4.8 km; 0-3 mi) off Delaware Bay, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries

Commercial species classified as HMS are those species that are generally found in the offshore 

pelagic environment (surface to mid-water [0-400 m; 0-1,312 ft]) beyond the continental shelf. HMS 

display daily, seasonal, or annual migratory behavior and can make transoceanic migrations. Commercial 

fisheries for HMS are conducted throughout the AOI with pelagic longline fishing gear, but other fishing

gears used to harvest HMS species include purse seines, handgear (handlines and harpoons), and gillnets 

(i.e., for sharks). The primary species taken in HMS fisheries include wahoo, dolphin, swordfish, eight 

tuna species (albacore [Thunnus alalunga], Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna [Thunnus obesus], blackfin 

tuna [Thunnus atlanticus], bonito [Sarda sarda], little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), skipjack tuna 

[Katsuwonus pelamis], and yellowfin tuna [Thunnus albacares]), and various species of pelagic sharks 

(e.g., shortfin mako shark [Isurus oxyrinchus]) and coastal sharks (tiger shark). Commercial fishing

vessels set pelagic longline gear to target swordfish at sunset and retrieve gear around sunrise, while the 

opposite pattern is followed for tuna; gear is set at sunrise and retrieved in the afternoon before sunset. 

The longline fishery for tuna and swordfish is active year-round in the AOI, but most of the commercial 

fishing effort is in the spring through fall, when the weather is better. However, there are two time/area 

closures for pelagic longline gear within the AOI (Charleston Bump and East Florida), as described 

below. Commercial fishermen targeting HMS fisheries with pelagic longline gear generally set their gear 

in association with the Gulf Stream; pelagic longline sets can be made on the east or west side of the Gulf 

Stream current, which varies daily. Pelagic longline fishing vessels are mobile, so commercial fishing 

activity can occur either relatively close (80-161 km; 50-100 mi) or far away (322-483 km; 200-300 mi) 

from their respective ports of call.

4.2.7.1.4. Time and Area Closures and Gear Restrictions

One method that FMCs use to control commercial fishing effort or protect specific habitats is by 

designating closed areas (space) or closing fisheries (time: temporary, seasonal, or permanent). 

Permanent fishery or area closures are year-round, whereas seasonal and rolling closures are usually only 

at certain times of the year. To notify the public of fishery or site closures, NMFS publishes the 

regulations in the Federal Register, which are usually associated with an FMP amendment or FMP 

management action. When a closure has been approved, FMCs, in cooperation with NMFS, announce 

these closures through their website, sending emails and faxes, or holding public meetings. In addition to 

closing fisheries or areas for fish conservation management reasons, regulatory agencies also use closed 

areas to protect marine mammals or sea turtles (e.g., from entanglement in discarded fishing gear). 

Permanent commercial fishing closures can also consist of prohibiting various types of commercial 

fishing gears or fishing techniques.

Table 4-31 summarizes areas where certain commercial fishing activities are prohibited or where 

gear restrictions apply during all or part of the year. Figure 4-23 shows the locations of most of these 

closure areas. Areas where the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (USDOC, NMFS, 2010e)

mandates trap/pot and gillnet restrictions are shown in Figures 4-24 and 4-25, respectively.

4.2.7.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses the potential impacts of routine activities associated with Alternative A on 

commercial fisheries. As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1, IPFs that may affect commercial fisheries include 

(1) active acoustic sound sources (e.g., airguns, bottom profilers, depth sounders, side-scan sonar), 

(2) vessel traffic, (3) vessel exclusion zones, and (4) seafloor disturbance (Table 4-2). 
4-158 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.7.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to commercial fisheries would include those where little to no measurable impacts 

are observed or expected. There would not be any interruption of commercial fishing activities, gear 

damage, or detectable impacts to commercial fish resources. 

Minor impacts to commercial fisheries would include those that are detectable but neither severe nor 

extensive. Minor impacts to commercial fisheries would include localized, short-term interruption of 

commercial fishing activities or localized gear damage with no detectable effect on commercial fish 

landings. Minor impacts would also include localized, minor impacts on fish resources with no detectable 

effect on commercial fisheries landings.

Moderate impacts to commercial fisheries would be detectable, short-term, extensive but not severe; 

or severe but localized. Moderate impacts to commercial fisheries would include extensive but infrequent 

interruption of commercial fishing activities and/or damage to fishing gear sufficient to result in 

detectable decreases in commercial fisheries landings, and/or extensive but not severe impacts on fish 

resources (i.e., not sufficient to result in sizable decreases in commercial fisheries landings).

Major impacts to commercial fisheries would be detectable, extensive, and severe. Major impacts to 

commercial fisheries would include extensive, frequent interruption of commercial fishing activities 

and/or damage to fishing gear sufficient to result in sizable decreases in commercial fisheries landings, 

and/or extensive, severe impacts on fish resources (i.e., sufficient to result in sizable decreases in 

commercial fisheries landings).

4.2.7.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Under Alternative A, active acoustic sound sources would be used in support of all BOEM program 

areas – oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals. However, there are significant differences in 

the spatial and temporal characteristics of seismic survey activity by program. Whereas active acoustic 

sound sources working under the oil and gas program may occur throughout the entire AOI (from shore 

[excluding State waters] to 648 km [403 mi]) and may work continuously for weeks or months to 

complete, active acoustic sound sources for renewable energy and marine minerals activities would only 

occur close to shore and would be of shorter survey duration. For example, wind facility siting studies are 

currently limited to about 46 km (25 nmi) from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water depth and would require 

3 days or less to complete, while marine minerals activities (i.e., sand source mining, existing borrow 

areas) are typically located in water depths between 10 and 30 m (33 and 98 ft), are restricted to a half 

dozen locations in the AOI, and would be only day-long survey efforts. Therefore, proposed G&G

activities include various types of seismic surveys that could potentially affect economically valuable 

commercial fisheries and commercial fishing operations throughout the AOI, with appropriate caveats. 

The spatial characteristics of each commercial fishery are important qualifiers to determining impact; 

temporal aspects (e.g., seasonal fishing activity) should also be considered.

Sound is used by fishes in a variety of ways (Zelick et al., 1999; Fay and Popper, 2000), as 

summarized in Appendix J. A detailed discussion of direct effects of sound on fishes is presented in 

Chapter 4.2.5.2. In general, fishes use sound to obtain an instant image of their surroundings both in 

terms of biotic (living) and abiotic (environmental) sources (Fay and Popper, 2000; Popper et al., 2003; 

Slabbekoorn et al., 2010). Besides having the ability to acquire biological and environmental information 

from sound, many bony fishes can communicate with sound; some fishes use sound during mating and 

territorial interactions (Zelick et al., 1999). Given these abilities, sound produced from anthropogenic 

sources (e.g., airguns, depth sounders) can affect fishes in a variety of ways including (but not limited to) 

changes in behavior, an impact that can affect the catchability of commercial fish stocks.

For the purposes of these analyses, an injury is defined as an effect on the physiology of the animal 

(e.g., burst swim bladder and massive internal bleeding, increased levels of stress hormones) caused by an 

anthropogenic sound source that leads to immediate or eventual death. A behavioral effect is anything 

that impedes (auditory masking) the ability of fishes to hear biologically relevant sounds, such as those 

produced by anthropogenic sound sources that could interfere with normal behaviors or the survival of 

individuals or populations, or alters the normal behavior (e.g., feeding or finding mates) of exposed fishes 

(see Appendix J). 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-159

More specifically related to fisheries, anthropogenic sound can cause fishes to alter their movements 

or avoid certain areas. Fish exposed to seismic sound typically exhibit an initial startle response, followed 

by tolerance to the sound source and, after a period of time, resumption of normal behavior.

Exposure to seismic sounds can cause short-term effects such as temporary avoidance of or 

movement out of specific areas, with an increased potential for subsequent changes to commercial fishery 

landings and associated revenue. Løkkeborg and Soldal (1993) studied the influence of seismic 

exploration noise on behavior and catch rates of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) by investigating data on 

reported conflicts between fishing and seismic operations derived from fishing vessel log books and 

seismic survey log books. The catch rates were reduced 55-85 percent for longline and trawl fisheries at 

distances up to 9.2-18.5 km (5-10 nmi). These observed effects lasted for about 24 hr. The bottom trawl 

catch results were variable.

Engås et al. (1996), assessing haddock and Atlantic cod commercial fisheries, indicated a significant 

decline in catch rate of both species that lasted for several days following airgun exposure. Results 

suggest that fishes probably moved into deeper water, away from the fishing grounds. Catch rate 

subsequently returned to normal after cessation of seismic activity when fishes presumably moved back 

into their preferred water depths. These behavioral changes and associated declines in catch rates were 

also observed in other species exposed to seismic and other sound sources (e.g., Skalski et al., 1992; 

Slotte et al., 2004, both using seismic sound sources; Sarà et al., 2007, assessing pelagic species effects 

using boat noise). In several study results, however, available data regarding reduced catch rates for 

marine fisheries exposed to seismic survey noise was qualified by uneven or low fish concentrations 

present or the inability to distinguish the possible effects of other sources of disturbance, further 

complicating a definitive determination of reduced catch rates (e.g., see Dalen and Raknes, 1985; Dalen 

and Knutsen, 1986; Løkkeborg, 1991, all using seismic sound sources). Several studies also suggest that 

the spatial displacement of fishes is limited (e.g., ~9.2 km [~5 nmi] from an active seismic source) and 

that fishes move back into their preferred areas after cessation of seismic survey activity (e.g., within one 

to several days).

Limited scientific information is available that describes the impacts to fish behavior from seismic

sound because it is difficult to study such behavior in the field; some study results suggest that fishes do 

not respond to sounds that are not biologically produced. In other words, if the sound was not recognized 

as being biologically important, then fishes did not react, regardless of the sound level (Doksaeter et al., 

2009). Plachta and Popper (2003) have demonstrated that fishes respond to biologically relevant sounds, 

but only at certain sound levels. In the absence of a solid scientific database regarding sound effects, it is 

difficult to predict if anthropogenic sound from seismic activity would seriously affect fishes; impacts are 

expected to be related to exposure level, frequency of occurrence, and duration. The potential effect 

could also be related to water depth, suggesting that inshore fishes could be impacted to a greater extent 

than offshore fishes.

Given this type of observational information, it is possible that anthropogenic noise associated with 

the use of seismic equipment could influence pelagic fish behavior or their prey and thereby affect pelagic 

longline fisheries within the AOI, although studies conducted to date fail to universally support this 

hypothesis. Wardle et al. (2001) observed the behavior of Scotland fishes exposed to airgun noise, 

observing that several fish species showed virtually no response to the airgun firing beyond an initial, 

transient startle response that did not change their pattern of movement.

Depending on the amount of seismic activity, the location of the surveys, and species present, 

short-term effects that could temporarily affect pelagic longline fisheries in certain areas within the AOI 

could occur. For example, considering the single largest source of active acoustic sound 

(i.e., 2D high-resolution seismic survey activity for the period 2014-2020; Table 3-3), several spatially

based impact determinations can be made. Impacts to benthic, demersal, and coastal pelagic commercial 

fisheries would be (1) limited off Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina within 32 km (20 mi) of shore 

given the relatively low level of 2D survey activity predicted for this portion of the AOI; and (2) higher 

off South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida within 32 km (20 mi) of shore because of higher projected 2D 

survey levels in these areas. Further offshore, impacts to the pelagic commercial fishery from 2D surveys 

are expected to be higher off Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia, decreasing with distance, again 

attributed to the higher level of survey activity expected in these areas.

The limited information available on the effects of active acoustic sounds generated by G&G

activities on economically important invertebrates suggests that behavioral changes would be minimal 
4-160 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

(Chapter 4.2.1.2). Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that commercial fisheries that use pots/traps, 

dredges, and otter trawls to target invertebrates would be significantly affected. However, there is a 

potential that commercial fisheries that use longlines, gillnets, and purse seines could be negatively 

impacted by active acoustic sound from seismic equipment.

Studies discussed above and in Appendix J have shown that high energy seismic surveys can startle 

fish and drive them away from preferred habitat for short periods (days). The spatial scale of the 

influence can extend to 9.2-18.5 km (5-10 nmi) from the source, and some studies showed possible 

response up to 50 km away (Appendix J). In the AOI, coastal migratory pelagic and highly migratory 

pelagic species would likely flee working survey vessels. Demersal species in the path of a survey vessel 

would also be expected to temporarily move from preferred substrata during surveys. Thus, 

commercially exploited pelagic and demersal fish stocks would be only temporarily affected. Catch rates 

would potentially decline but would be expected to return to normal levels following the cessation of the 

seismic operation (e.g., Engås et al. 1996; Engås and Løkkeborg, 2002). Given the spatial and temporal 

characteristics of active acoustic sound source used under the activity scenario, and the results of limited 

seismic sound exposure studies on fishes, it is likely that potential impacts to commercial fisheries

resources would be minor, with no population-level effects. Impacts, including behavioral changes and 

avoidance, are expected at a few locations, with likely impacts being intermittent, temporary, and shortterm. There would be an increased potential for a localized and temporary decrease in catchability of one 

or more commercial fish species. Overall, impacts associated with active acoustic sound generated from 

G&G activities under Alternative A are not expected to adversely affect aggregate commercial fishery 

landings. Impacts to commercial fisheries from active acoustic sound sources would be minor. 

Vessel Traffic and Vessel Exclusion Zones

Vessel traffic associated with G&G activities would increase in specific areas, thereby increasing the 

potential for interference with commercial fishing operations, especially dredges, otter trawls, longlines, 

and purse seines. These types of commercial fisheries could be adversely affected because an increase in 

vessel traffic (and associated vessel exclusion zones) throughout the fishing grounds may prevent 

commercial fishing operators from properly setting their gear (see Chapter 4.2.7.1.2). The G&G seismic

airgun surveys would also attempt to maintain a vessel exclusion zone to protect airgun arrays and towed 

streamers from other vessel traffic. The size of the vessel exclusion zone would be dependent upon the 

equipment being employed and the extent of the streamers. A typical vessel exclusion zone has been 

estimated to cover 1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. With the source vessel moving at speeds of 

about 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr), the length of time that any particular point would be within the vessel exclusion 

zone would be about 1 hr. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.5, the vessel exclusion zone is simply an area 

monitored by a seismic survey operator and has no formal status or designation by the USCG. However, 

a Local Notice to Mariners would be issued that would specify the survey dates and locations and the 

recommended avoidance requirements.

Generally, most commercial fishing operators set their gear according to specific habitats 

(e.g., bottom profile) or water conditions (e.g., Gulf Stream current). Thus, if there are numerous seismic

vessels conducting surveys through the fishing grounds, it may prevent fishermen from setting their gear 

in a matter that maximizes fishing effort. Vessel exclusion zones around survey vessels may also affect 

the setting of gear. Catch rates are dependent not only upon the numbers of fishes and location, but also 

upon fishing techniques (deployment).

Several commercial fishery gears are classified as passive gears. These types of gears are usually set 

and go unattended for hours or days, such as pots/traps, gillnets, and longlines. Therefore, an increase in 

vessel traffic and towed survey gear (e.g., streamers) could increase the chances that fishing gear would 

be disturbed or accidently hit (buoys and lines cut) by seismic vessels conducting surveys, especially 

those operating at night. The G&G survey activities would be expected to produce a minor increased risk 

for entanglement, particularly during May-October in nearshore waters (<4.8 km [<3 mi] from shore) off 

the coasts of Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina where the benthic and demersal inshore fisheries are 

prominent.

The primary direct effect of a vessel exclusion zone is the short-term, temporary loss of access to 

fishing grounds and lost fishing time. Given the small area occupied by the vessel exclusion zone for 

these vessels and the short duration of the impact at any given location, there is only a limited potential 

for space-use conflicts between G&G activities and commercial fishing operations within the AOI. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-161

Vessel exclusion zones associated with G&G activities may require commercial fishing entities to retrieve 

nets or lines earlier than usual to avoid seismic vessels conducting surveys, or cause them to stand-off 

until the seismic vessel and its associated safety zone have moved past the fishing grounds. If 

commercial fishermen temporarily lose access to fishing grounds or are required to terminate or change 

their fishing techniques, this may reduce catch and affect quality of catch, which could ultimately affect 

annual or regional revenue. Under Alternative A, G&G activities and associated vessel exclusion zones 

would not be expected to have any indirect effects on commercial fishery operations unless these 

activities cause commercial fishermen to concentrate their fishing efforts on other fishing activities. 

Commercial fisheries are continuing to evolve, so it difficult to gauge whether these restrictions would 

cause some fishermen to engage in other fisheries. Most commercial fishermen already participate in 

various commercial fisheries, so it is unlikely that vessel exclusion zones would cause any other 

significant changes in fishing effort distribution.

Marine space-use issues are a continuing problem and an important element in marine spatial 

planning (Crowder and Norse, 2008; Douvere and Ehler, 2009). Marine space conflicts are already an 

issue between many competing fisheries in some regions (e.g., pelagic longline fisheries; deepwater crab 

fisheries). Vessel exclusion zones resulting from proposed G&G seismic activity under Alternative A

have the potential to directly affect a limited amount of commercial fishing activity within the AOI. 

Although it is difficult to estimate the economic impacts at the regional level, it is possible that these 

activities would produce minor impacts to specific fisheries or individuals. Vessel traffic issues related to 

G&G survey activities under Alternative A have the potential to directly and indirectly affect some 

commercial fishing activities within the AOI. Although it difficult to estimate the economic impacts at 

the regional level, it is possible these activities would affect specific fisheries or individuals. Based on 

the predicted activity levels and AOI, G&G vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones are expected to 

produce minor impacts, with no population level or regional effects. Impacts are expected at a few 

locations and would be intermittent, temporary, and short-term. Impacts to commercial fisheries landings 

arising from vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones are expected to be minor. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Seafloor disturbance could potentially affect commercial fisheries operations within the AOI, 

specifically the potential for damage to bottom-founded fishing gear. Most passive gears such as traps, 

pots, and bottom longlines are generally well marked by surface buoys. For longlines and groups of 

traps, the buoys may mark only the terminal ends of much longer deployments. Such situations would be 

susceptible to interference from G&G bottom sampling operations. Under Alternative A, seafloor 

disturbance caused by bottom sampling activities has the potential to affect unmarked gear or segments of 

gear deployments used by bottom-oriented commercial fishing operations.

Bottom fisheries (i.e., dredges, otter trawls, and bottom longlines) in the AOI are among the most 

important commercial fisheries in terms of value. The main indirect effect associated with seafloor 

disturbance is long-term change in benthic community structure. There are several G&G activities that 

could cause seafloor disturbance, including geological and geochemical samplings (e.g., bottom sampling, 

shallow coring), placement and removal of equipment on the seafloor (e.g., ocean bottom cables, 

anchors), and the installation of up to three COST wells and up to five shallow test wells. Proposed

activities under Alternative A include bottom sampling in all three program areas. These include 

50-300 core or grab samples in the oil and gas program, 3,106-9,969 core or grab samples in the 

renewable energy program, and 1-8 geologic cores, 60-320 grab samples, and 90-600 vibracores in the 

marine minerals program. Collection of each sample is estimated to disturb an area of approximately 

10 m2

, although the actual area of the core or grab extracted may be much smaller. The maximum total 

area disturbed by core or grab sampling is expected to be about 11 ha (27.7 ac), which represents 

0.00001 percent of the AOI. Sampling for renewable energy projects would occur at specific sites 

(consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable 

routes to shore. Offshore Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, the likely sampling locations would be 

within designated WEAs (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011a) (Chapter 4.2.12.1.4). North Carolina has 

identified 56 OCS blocks of interest, but it is likely that sampling would occur within only a small subset 

of these blocks. Specific AOIs have not been identified for the South Atlantic states. Sampling activities 

for marine minerals would be conducted at specific borrow sites in water depths less than 30 m (98 ft). 

Much of the marine minerals activity is expected to occur within existing borrow sites offshore the 
4-162 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic states (Chapter 4.2.12.1.3). Depending on the amount and frequency of 

G&G survey effort that could disturb the seafloor in a specific area, these activities have the potential to 

change biodiversity, cause habitat fragmentation, and reshape benthic community structure (albeit on very 

small spatial scale), which could adversely affect bottom commercial fisheries. This phenomenon has 

already been documented in trawling and dredging operations (Barnette, 2001). Benthic communities 

have been affected by commercial and recreational fishing activities, the latter of which have been 

estimated to affect approximately 53 percent of the world’s continental shelf (Watling and Norse, 1998).

Direct impacts to commercial fisheries include entanglement issues with bottom fisheries (i.e., fish 

traps [black sea bass], bottom longline, and bottom and mid-water gillnets). Indirect impacts associated 

with G&G activities that disturb the seafloor may include destruction and/or alteration of habitat, and 

disturbance of benthic communities (e.g., fishes and invertebrates such as flounders, shrimps, and crabs 

and their habitat). In many locations within the AOI, benthic habitat has already been severely impacted 

by commercial fishing operations (i.e., bottom trawling and dredging); any additional impacts arising 

from G&G activities on the seafloor could further reduce available habitat for bottom fishes and 

invertebrates (Barnette, 2001).

Seafloor disturbance issues related to G&G activities under Alternative A have the potential to 

directly and indirectly affect some commercial fishing activities within the AOI. Although it is difficult 

to estimate the economic impacts at the regional level (if any), it is still possible these activities would 

impact some specific commercial fisheries in the AOI. It is likely that intermittent, temporary, and 

short-term changes in benthic communities would occur as a result of G&G benthic sampling and coring 

activity (Chapter 4.2.1.2). However, these types of G&G activities would be conducted on a very 

limited basis. Bottom sampling is expected for all three program areas (Chapter 3), as summarized 

previously; however, the total area affected represents a very small fraction of the AOI. In addition, 

BOEM would require site-specific information concerning potential sensitive benthic communities 

(including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior 

to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI.

The total areal extent of seafloor disturbance expected under the proposed action scenario represents a 

very small fraction of the seafloor in the AOI (Chapter 4.2.1.2). However, there is a chance that a 

particular seafloor disturbance, no matter how small, may occur within a productive fishing area. Seafloor 

disturbance and its impact to commercial fishing operations and potential effects on commercial fishery 

landings under Alternative A are expected to be limited and localized, but potentially overlapping with 

productive fishing grounds and therefore are expected to range from negligible to minor depending on 

the location.

4.2.7.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel, but such an event has a 

remote probability of occurring. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a vessel collision

may release between 1.2 and 7.1 bbl of diesel fuel.

In the event of a fuel spill from a seismic vessel, it may be possible that commercially important 

fishes could be exposed to water soluble fractions of spilled diesel. Surface feeding fishes are most likely 

to be exposed. For example, dolphin (fish) often consume small fishes associated with floating 

Sargassum. Tuna and swordfish are another important commercial fish group that is sometimes 

associated with Sargassum habitat or surface waters. Given the size of the diesel spill, the extent of 

surface fouling would be limited. Under the expected spill scenario developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1, a 

diesel fuel spill would be expected to remain in surface waters, subjected to evaporation and dispersion; a 

portion of the spill may adhere to particulates and sink. It is unlikely that a small release of diesel fuel 

would have any direct impact to commercial fishery landings throughout the AOI. Although a small fuel 

spill is not likely to pose a serious threat to fishery landings, there is the possibility that consumers would 

not buy fish or shellfish from the affected locality. Misperceptions like this could result in a temporary 

drop in revenue to local commercial fishers. Impacts to commercial fisheries resources from an 

accidental fuel spill would range from negligible to minor.

Spill vessel response activity also has the potential to adversely affect commercial fishing operations. 

However, given the size of the potential spill, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not 

expected. Small diesel spills (500-5,000 gal) usually evaporate and disperse within a day or less, even in 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-163

cold water (USDOC, NOAA, 2006); thus, seldom is there any oil on the surface for responders to recover. 

Therefore, impacts to commercial fisheries resources from a small diesel fuel spill are expected to range 

from negligible to minor. 

4.2.7.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 and includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to affect 

commercial fisheries include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater noise 

from sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources; (2) vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones; 

(3) seafloor disturbance; and (4) a risk of a crude oil spill from a well blowout or accidental releases of 

fuel or other hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental events or low-probability large scale 

catastrophic events). 

Five sources of potential impact to commercial fisheries have been identified in association with 

proposed G&G activities, including (1) active acoustic sound sources; (2) vessel traffic; (3) vessel

exclusion zones; (4) seafloor disturbance; and (5) accidental fuel spills. Impact analyses presented in 

Chapters 4.2.7.2 and 4.2.7.3 determined that activities projected to occur under Alternative A would 

result in negligible or minor impacts to commercial fisheries, depending upon the IPF. The following 

analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically with other 

impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

With the cumulative activities scenario, the primary underwater noise sources that could adversely 

affect commercial fisheries include those arising from military operations and G&G survey activities (i.e., 

sonars, explosives active sound sources, including airguns and electromechanical sources, and vessel and 

equipment noise). A sizeable portion of the AOI includes military range complexes and civilian space 

program use areas (i.e., 5 operating areas, 1 NASA restricted area, multiple unexploded ordnance disposal 

areas; see Chapter 4.2.12.1.2) that, in total, extend almost the entire length of coast within the AOI. 

These military range complexes and civilian space program use areas include designated danger areas, 

restricted areas, and closure areas that limit access by vessel traffic, including commercial fishing, during 

specific times or prior to/during specific activities or operations; in some instances, areas may be 

completely closed to all vessel traffic. Impacts from sound-producing military operations and 

sound-producing G&G activities, including behavioral changes and avoidance by commercial fish 

species, are expected at select military range complexes and civilian space program use locations and 

(important fishing grounds), with likely impacts being intermittent, temporary, and short-term. Because 

of the spatial and temporal characteristics of military exercises that produce active acoustic sound and the 

nature of the sound sources (e.g., explosion, single pulse, limited multiple pulses), coupled with the 

exclusion of commercial fishing vessels from areas where military operations are planned or being 

conducted, impacts to commercial fisheries from military range complexes and civilian space program 

uses under the cumulative scenario are expected to be negligible. 

Vessel traffic noise from the remaining cumulative scenario sources (e.g., oil and gas exploration and 

development, recreational fishing, shipping, and marine transportation) would also contribute to ambient 

noise levels throughout the AOI. Under the cumulative activities scenario, these vessel and equipment 

noise sources are expected to produce a negligible impact to commercial fisheries. 

Under Alternative A, active acoustic sound sources would be used in support of all BOEM program 

areas – oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals. Active acoustic sound sources employed 

under the oil and gas program may occur throughout the entire AOI, with broad areas being surveyed for 

extended time periods. Active acoustic sound sources for renewable energy and marine minerals 

activities only would occur close to shore and would be of shorter survey duration. These impacts are 
4-164 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

expected to be spatially localized and short-term in duration. Overall, exposure to active acoustic sound 

sources from G&G activities under Alternative A is expected to produce negligible to minor impacts to 

commercial fisheries. 

Because there are no significant noise impacts evident from the cumulative activities scenario, and 

there is no evidence of ambient noise levels approaching a threshold level where commercial fisheries

might be significantly affected, it is expected that there would be a minor incremental increase in impact

to commercial fisheries from active acoustic sound sources under Alternative A under the cumulative 

scenario.

Vessel Traffic and Vessel Exclusion Zones

Vessel traffic would increase under the cumulative scenario to support most of the activities. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, generally, most commercial fishing operators set their gear according to 

specific habitats (e.g., bottom profile) or water conditions (e.g., Gulf Stream current). Thus, if there are 

numerous vessels transiting through the fishing grounds, it may prevent fishermen from setting their gear 

in a matter that maximizes fishing effort. However, the additional vessel traffic from the cumulative 

scenario would not be a significant increase to existing vessel traffic. Most vessels would be able to 

avoid commercial fishing vessels with gear in the water as they transit to an offshore location, and 

therefore impacts to commercial fisheries from vessel traffic associated with the cumulative scenario are 

expected to be negligible. 

Military range complexes and civilian space program use areas already restrict commercial fishing

activities, and the proposed action would cause additional vessel exclusion zones. Because the additional 

vessel exclusion zones caused by the proposed action would be intermittent, temporary, and short-term, 

impacts to commercial fisheries arising from vessel exclusion zones are expected to be negligible. 

Cumulative scenario activities including oil and gas exploration, renewable energy, geosequestration, 

and LNG terminals potentially may include the presence of structures within the AOI. However, there are 

already areas in the AOI that are unavailable for trawl or longline fishing (Table 4-31), which represent a 

very small fraction of 1 percent of the total OCS. The introduction of surface and bottom obstructions 

from oil and gas or renewable energy structures under the cumulative impacts scenario would not be 

greater than 1 percent of the available surface or bottom area in the AOI in water <200 m (656 ft) deep. 

Therefore, these additional structures would add to the exclusion areas already required by the proposed 

action and reduce the commercial fishing areas. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, marine space-use 

issues are an important element in marine spatial planning (Crowder and Norse, 2008; Douvere and Ehler, 

2009). Marine space conflicts are already an issue between many competing fisheries in some regions 

(e.g., pelagic longline fisheries; deepwater crab fisheries). Vessel exclusion zones resulting from the 

proposed activities under Alternative A and the additional ones from the cumulative scenario activities 

have the potential to directly affect a limited amount of commercial fishing activity within the AOI. 

Although it is difficult to estimate the economic impacts at the regional level, it is possible that these 

activities would produce impacts to specific fisheries or individuals. However, based on the activities 

anticipated in the time period evaluated in the Programmatic EIS, impacts are expected at a few locations 

(Chapter 4.2.7.2). Incremental impacts to commercial fisheries arising from the presence of structures 

and the associated vessel exclusion zones are expected to be negligible. 

Seafloor Disturbance

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, one of the biggest issues with the cumulative activities scenario is 

impacts from additional seafloor appurtenances (e.g., drilling rigs, bottom-founded meteorological buoys, 

wind turbines, and cables) to bottom fisheries (i.e., fish traps [black sea bass], bottom longline, and 

bottom and mid-water gillnets). Other seafloor activities would result in the destruction and/or alteration 

of habitat and disturbance of benthic communities (e.g., fishes and invertebrates such as flounders, 

shrimps, and crabs and their habitats). In many locations within the AOI, benthic habitat has already been 

severely impacted by commercial fishing operations; any additional impacts arising from additional 

seafloor-disturbing activities could further reduce available habitat for bottom fishes and invertebrates 

(Barnette, 2001). A number of cumulative action scenario activities would result in additional seafloor 

disturbance (e.g., oil and gas exploration and development, marine minerals use, geosequestration, LNG 

terminals).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-165

BOEM would require site-specific information regarding seafloor and fishing resources prior to 

approving most of the cumulative scenario activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement 

of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM would use this information to ensure that 

impacts to benthic communities are avoided and impacts to fisheries resources are evaluated; therefore, 

benthic communities would be protected from impacts from oil and gas development, marine minerals

use, renewable energy development, geosequestration, and LNG terminals. Site-specific information will 

also ensure that proposed projects do not take place within known fishing grounds.

The area of the seafloor that would potentially be impacted by the proposed action activities is 

extremely small when compared to the total area of the AOI (0.00025%). Further, the level of activity in 

the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS for cumulative scenario activities is not anticipated to 

cause significant, extensive seafloor disturbance when compared to the entire AOI; therefore, the 

incremental impacts to commercial fisheries from seafloor-disturbing activities are expected to range 

from negligible to minor. 

Accidental Fuel Spills

Chapter 3.6.1 outlines the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to fisheries would occur via direct contamination of fishes and preclusion 

of commercial fishing operations within spill response areas would depend on the location and size of the 

spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts would be analyzed 

in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted by an operator. Therefore, 

potential impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be examined in the EA 

prepared prior to the drilling of any wells. The EA would require site-specific information regarding 

fisheries and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts to fisheries from drilling activities and a 

potential accidental crude oil spill. In addition, with the required mitigation measures in place and with 

oversight of these activities by the BSEE, an accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well is not 

anticipated; however, a spill still could occur. However, with these measures in place, impacts to 

commercial fisheries from the cumulative scenario activities would be negligible. 

The likelihood of a fuel spill during seismic airgun surveys or other G&G activities is expected to be 

remote and the associated impacts are expected to be minor (Chapter 4.2.7.3). The potential for a fuel 

spill from vessels involved in the cumulative activities scenario would have similar likelihood and 

resulting impacts. Consequently, it may be possible that commercially important fishes could be exposed 

to water soluble fractions of spilled diesel. Spill effects on commercial fishes, as well as spill response 

vessel operations, would have a direct effect on commercial fishing operations. Surface-feeding fishes

and floating fish eggs are most likely to be exposed to a diesel fuel spill and weathered or dissolved fuel 

components. However, given the size of the potential spill, a large-scale spill response involving multiple 

vessels is not expected. Small diesel spills (500-5,000 gal) usually evaporate and disperse within a day or 

less, even in cold water (USDOC, NOAA, 2006); thus, seldom is there any oil on the surface for 

responders to recover. Therefore, the incremental impacts to commercial fisheries activities associated 

with a fuel spill from vessels under the cumulative activities scenario would be negligible. 

4.2.8. Recreational Fisheries

4.2.8.1. Description of the Affected Environment

Recreational fishing is an important social and economic activity. Nationally, 8.9 million saltwater 

recreational anglers made 86 million trips and spent $10.3 billion in 2011 (USDOI, FWS, DOC Census 

Bureau, 2013). These expenditures included food and lodging ($2.4 billion), transportation ($1.5 billion), 

fishing equipment ($1.4 billion), boats ($1.3 billion), and other equipment ($217 million). In 2006, 
4-166 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

recreational fishing was estimated to have generated $82.3 billion in total sales, $38 billion in valueadded (i.e., contribution to Gross Domestic Product [GDP]), and $24 billion in income, and supported 

533,813 jobs (Gentner and Steinback, 2008). Saltwater recreational fisheries in states adjacent to the AOI 

are among the most valuable in the U.S. In 2006, Florida ranked first and North Carolina ranked fifth 

nationally for total expenditures and durable good expenditures related to recreational fishing (Gentner 

and Steinback, 2008). Among states adjacent to the AOI, sales, income, and employment impacts created 

by party/charter boat fishing and private/rental boat fishing were the highest in Florida, while the impacts 

generated from shore-based fishing were the highest in North Carolina (Genter and Steinback, 2008). 

Overall, angler trip expenditures in Florida generated more sales, income, and employment impacts than 

any other coastal state in 2006 (Genter and Steinback, 2008). In 2006, Federal taxes generated by angler 

purchases ranged from $15 million (Georgia) to $1.2 billion (Florida), while revenue received by 

State/local governments ranged from $11 million (Georgia) to $867 million (Florida) (Genter and 

Steinback, 2008).

A recent comprehensive national analysis of recreational fishing estimated that saltwater fishing 

accounted for about 4 percent of the total marine fish landed in 2002 (Coleman et al., 2004). However, 

recreational fishing accounts for a much larger percentage of the total landings in some areas such as in 

the South Atlantic (38%) (Coleman et al., 2004). In 2009, commercial landings of red snapper along the 

South Atlantic Coast (from North Carolina to the Florida east coast) were valued at $1.3 million, but 

recreational fisheries of red snapper along the Florida east coast alone accounted for $17 million (Genter 

Consulting Group, 2011). Worldwide, increases in recreational fishing activity also may threaten some 

already overfished populations (Cooke and Cowx, 2004); in 2002, recreational fishing activities landed 

about 23 percent of the overfished stocks in the U.S. (Coleman et al., 2004).

4.2.8.1.1. Recreational Fishing Effort

The annual number of recreational angler trips is a measure of recreational fishing effort that is 

monitored by NMFS. The most recent data gathered through the NMFS Marine Recreational Information 

Program, formerly the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, are from the period from 

2008-2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b). During this period, the mean number of trips for the seven states 

adjacent to the AOI was 3.7 million, with the smallest mean in Georgia (956,373) and the largest in 

Florida (10.2 million) (Figure 4-26). In 2012, the number of angler trips in Florida (east coast only) was 

9.4 million, followed by North Carolina (5.3 million), Virginia (2.5 million), Maryland (2.2 million), 

South Carolina (2.2 million), Delaware (875,161), and Georgia (892,417). 

Recreational fishing is a year-round activity throughout the AOI, but it shows distinct seasonal 

patterns (Figure 4-27). During 2008-2012, the number of trips increased from winter to summer and 

peaked in July and August (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b).

Recreational fishing can be classified as nearshore or offshore effort, depending on the size of the 

vessel and its fishing location (distance from shore). Nearshore recreational fishing (<4.8 km [3.0 mi]) 

consists of anglers fishing from private vessels and along beaches, marshes, or manmade structures 

(e.g., jetties, docks, and piers), while offshore fishing consists of anglers fishing from larger vessels 

(private, rental, charter, or party) in offshore waters (>4.8 km [3.0 mi]). In total, recreational saltwater 

anglers made a total of 123.1 million trips in the AOI during 2008-2012. According to USDOC, NMFS 

(2013), recreational fishing trips that caught fish in the AOI during 2008-2012 were primarily fishing 

from private/rental (51%), beach/bank (7%), man-made structures (6%), charter vessels (2%), and party 

vessels (0.3%); a considerable number of fish were also caught by onshore anglers (33%). The primary 

recreational fishing effort in the AOI during 2008-2012 was by anglers fishing from private or rental 

vessels (13.3 million trips), followed by shore (8.5 million trips), beach and bank (1.8 million trips), manmade structures (1.5 million trips), charter vessels (532,756 million trips), and party (76,923 trips) vessels 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2013b).

4.2.8.1.2. Recreational Fishing Locations

Marine fishes depend upon and utilize many different types of habitats (e.g., seagrass, salt marsh, soft 

bottom, hard bottom) for feeding, spawning, and nursery grounds. Given the importance of these areas to 

the local fish fauna, recreational anglers have many options to target various species in these habitats. For 

example, anglers targeting reef fishes (groupers and snappers) target offshore structure (natural and 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-167

artificial reefs or ledges), while anglers pursuing inshore fishes (spotted seatrout and redfish) target 

seagrass habitat. Locations of natural and artificial reefs are discussed and plotted for the AOI in 

Chapter 4.2.1. Overall, 90 percent of the recreational fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic states (Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia) during 2008-2012 was conducted in inland waters (6 million trips), followed by 

ocean waters less than 4.8 km (3 mi) from shore (514,899 million trips), and ocean waters greater than 

4.8 km (3 mi) from shore (128,777 trips) (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b) (Figure 4-28). In the South Atlantic 

states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), recreational fishing effort during 

2008-2012 was also primarily conducted in inland waters (9.3 million trips), followed by ocean waters 

less than 4.8 km (3 mi) from shore (8.1 million trips), and ocean waters greater than 4.8 km (3 mi) from 

shore (1.6 million trips) (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b) (Figure 4-28).

4.2.8.1.3. Recreational Catch Characteristics

The choice of fish species targeted by recreational anglers depends on the season, fishing location, 

and seasonal movement of that particular species. For example, one of the best times to target HMS such 

as marlin and sailfish off the coast of Florida is during winter. Other species such as grouper and 

snappers are found off North and South Carolina year-round, but reef fishes do migrate to deeper offshore 

waters during winter. Recreational fishing is a year-round activity, but many anglers target specific 

species at certain times, and recreational fishing effort is often weather-dependent; more recreational 

fishing effort occurs during spring through summer when the weather is ideal for anglers fishing from 

small watercraft.

The types and numbers of fishes caught by recreational anglers vary by state within the AOI 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2013b). Some of the primary species landed by recreational anglers in the 

Mid-Atlantic states (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) during 2008-2012 were Atlantic croaker, spot, 

and white perch (Figure 4-29). In the South Atlantic states, anglers primarily landed mullet, scaled 

sardine, southern kingfish, spot, and bluefish (Figure 4-30). Spot, bluefish, and kingfish were landed 

primarily in North and South Carolina. Anglers also landed southern kingfish and sharks in Georgia, and 

a considerable number of scaled sardine and mullet in Florida; schooling fishes are often caught and used 

as baitfish for larger species (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b). Overall, there were more fishes landed in the 

Mid-Atlantic States than in the South Atlantic States during 2008-2012. 

4.2.8.1.4. Recreational Fishing Tournaments

Organized saltwater fishing tournaments are popular amateur and professional events that are held 

throughout the AOI from Delaware to Florida. Recreational fishing tournaments are held year-round, but 

most take place in summer during weekends. In general, many fishing tournaments are held at the same 

time and place each year; the local community often relies upon fishing tournaments to stimulate the local 

economy (e.g., restaurants, hotels, fuel, and supplies). Some of these tournaments are large enough to 

have corporate sponsors who donate prizes. Depending on the fishing tournament and its rules, 

participants have the option to target inshore (e.g., red drum, spotted seatrout, snook) or offshore 

(dolphin, wahoo, kingfish) categories, or enter both categories. Every fishing tournament has its own set 

of rules for classes of eligible fish, size limits, time limits, and specific geographical boundaries. Based 

on the tournament’s rules and eligible fish, participant teams choose fishing sites and tactics according to 

their fishing experience and local knowledge. Throughout the AOI, there are many fishing tournaments 

that are annual events; however, it is difficult to identify every possible tournament given that some 

tournaments are only one-time events and sponsorships can change from year to year. In general, 

saltwater fishing tournaments in the AOI have become such a local tradition and social activity that there 

is at least one tournament every weekend somewhere between Delaware and Florida from April through 

November (Table 4-32). Many of these fishing tournaments are held in conjunction with seafood and 

other local festivals within the community.

4.2.8.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses the potential impacts of routine G&G activities associated with Alternative A

on recreational fishing activities in the AOI. As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1, IPFs for recreational 

fisheries include (1) active acoustic sound sources (i.e., airguns, subbottom profilers, depth sounders, 
4-168 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

side-scan sonar), (2) vessel traffic, and (3) vessel exclusion zones (Table 4-2). In general, the potential 

impacts to recreational fisheries are similar to those identified for commercial fisheries (Chapter 4.2.7). 

4.2.8.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to recreational fisheries would include those where little to no measurable impacts 

are observed or expected.

Minor impacts to recreational fisheries would include those that are detectable but are neither severe 

nor extensive. Minor impacts to recreational fisheries would include localized, short-term interruption of 

recreational fishing activities. Minor impacts would also include localized, less than severe impacts on 

fish resources with minimal decreases in recreational fisheries landings.

Moderate impacts to recreational fisheries would be detectable and extensive but not severe. 

Moderate impacts to recreational fisheries would include extensive but infrequent interruption of 

recreational fishing activities and/or extensive, but not severe impacts on fish resources (i.e., not sufficient 

to result in sizable decreases in recreational fisheries landings).

Major impacts to recreational fisheries would be detectable, extensive, and severe. Major impacts to 

recreational fisheries would include extensive, frequent interruption of recreational fishing activities 

and/or extensive, severe impacts on fish resources (i.e., sufficient to result in sizable decreases in 

recreational fisheries landings).

4.2.8.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Active acoustic sound sources would be used in support of all BOEM program areas – oil and gas, 

renewable energy, and marine minerals. Active acoustic sound sources employed under the oil and gas 

program may occur throughout the entire AOI (from shore [excluding State waters] to 648 km [403 mi]), 

with broad areas being surveyed continuously for extended periods of time (i.e., weeks, months). Active 

acoustic sound sources for non-airgun HRG activities would mostly occur close to shore and would be of 

shorter survey duration. Under the renewable energy program, wind facility siting studies would be 

limited to about 46 km (25 nmi) from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water depths and would require 3 days or 

less to complete. Marine minerals activities (i.e., sand source mining, existing borrow areas) are typically 

located in water depths between 10 and 30 m (33 and 98 ft), are restricted to a half dozen locations in the 

AOI, and would be only day-long survey efforts.

Depending on the equipment and technique, airgun seismic pulses are typically fired from one or two 

vessels and are emitted at intervals of 5-60 s, and occasionally at shorter or longer intervals. In addition 

to airguns, several electromechanical sources can produce underwater noise – sonar and depth sounders. 

Under the activity scenario, surveys using these types of equipment would be conducted throughout the 

AOI, ranging from 2,600 hr (off Delaware) to 9,000 hr (off Florida).

Sound is used by fishes in a variety of ways, as outlined previously in Chapter 4.2.5. In general, 

fishes use sound to obtain an instant image of their surroundings both in terms of biotic (living) and 

abiotic (environmental) sources. Many bony fishes can communicate with sound; some fishes use sound 

during mating and territorial interactions. Anthropogenic sound (e.g., airguns, depth sounders) can affect 

fishes via behavioral changes, injury, and mortality (Chapter 4.2.5.2 and Appendix J). 

Reef Fishes: In the southern region (North Carolina to Florida) of the AOI, snappers, groupers, and 

other reef fishes are usually targeted by recreational anglers at coral and hard/live bottom fishing sites. In 

the northern region (Delaware to North Carolina) of the AOI, recreational anglers usually target black sea 

bass and other reef fishes at hard bottom habitat communities. Under Alternative A, seismic operations 

would be avoided within the NARW critical habitat on a seasonal basis (November 15-April 15), 

effectively eliminating potential for impact to recreational fishes present in this region during this period. 

It is also unlikely that sounds generated from G&G equipment would cause any mortality to bottom reef 

fishes such as groupers and snappers because Alternative A includes the use of ramp-up as part of the

Survey Protocol. Research results also suggest that seismic noise exposure would not produce serious 

injury or mortality to reef fishes. Only a few studies have documented the impacts of exposure to high 

intensity sound on fishes. Kane et al. (2010) and Song et al. (2008) both found that sound generated from 

sonar and seismic devices showed no tissue damage to fishes, while Halvorsen et al. (2011a,b) reported 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-169

that Chinook salmon was affected by sounds generated from simulated pile driving procedures. Although 

Halvorsen’s results documented initial negative effects, specimens showed complete recovery after a 

short period following exposure. Enger (1981) and McCauley et al. (2003) also reported that Atlantic cod 

and pink snapper exhibited small losses of sensory cells after being exposed to high intensity sounds, but 

fishes recovered shortly thereafter. Based on these studies, it is unlikely that the G&G activities under 

Alternative A would cause serious injury or mortality to reef-type fishes such as groupers and snappers. 

Impacts on reef fishes, as a component of recreational fisheries, would be negligible. 

Coastal Fishes: Fishes found along coastal beaches and inlets are among the most popular fishes

pursued by recreational anglers. In general, most of the time anglers fish inshore and outside of the AOI 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2011l,m); however, approximately 50 percent of the fishing activity occurs along 

nearshore coastal areas (i.e., <4.8 km (<3 mi) from shore) that may be affected by sound generated by 

seismic equipment. Popular recreational fishes harvested along coastal beaches and nearshore waters 

include bluefish, striped bass, cobia, wahoo, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and Atlantic croaker. 

Despite the fact that these inshore fishes are found in much shallower waters than bottom fishes 

(e.g., groupers and snappers), there is no scientific evidence to suggest that these species are more 

vulnerable to active acoustic sound generated from seismic equipment. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 

G&G activities under Alternative A would cause significant impacts leading to the mortality of inshore 

and coastal fishes. Impacts to coastal fishes, as a component of recreational fisheries, would be 

negligible. 

Pelagic Fishes: Recreational anglers also target pelagic species such as tuna, billfishes, and sharks 

throughout the offshore waters of the AOI. In general, anglers usually troll along the Gulf Stream current 

(eastern and western edge) that flows from south (Florida) to north (Delaware) through the AOI. 

Assuming that G&G seismic airgun surveys would be conducted inshore, within, and offshore of the Gulf 

Stream, it is possible that seismic sounds may affect recreational anglers pursuing these offshore fishes. It 

is very unlikely that these types of sounds would cause mortality to tuna, billfishes, and pelagic sharks. In 

general, these types of fishes display highly migratory behavior and are adapted to continuously swim. 

Therefore, the chance of these fishes being exposed to seismic sounds at a level that could cause mortality 

is extremely unlikely, especially since the seismic vessel and these fishes are continually moving. 

Ramp-up procedures are also expected to minimize any potential impacts to migratory fishes. Currently, 

there is no scientific evidence that suggests that these types of fishes are adversely affected by 

anthropogenic sound generated from seismic activity. Therefore, it is unlikely that the G&G activities 

under Alternative A would cause significant impacts leading to the mortality of pelagic fishes such as 

tuna and billfishes. Impacts to pelagic fishes, as a component of recreational fisheries, would be 

negligible. 

Recreational Fishing Activity: Anthropogenic sound generated from seismic activity under 

Alternative A has the potential to directly and indirectly affect some recreational fishing activities within 

the AOI. There is little scientific evidence to suggest that this type of sound would cause immediate 

mortality or physiological effects causing long-term injury. Nevertheless, localized, short-term 

interruptions of recreational fishing activities may be expected, and slight decreases in recreational 

fisheries landings may occur. A determination of economic impact of active acoustic sound exposure on 

recreational fish landings is problematic. Given the absence of serious injury or mortality to recreational 

fishes and the potential for behavioral changes from active acoustic sound exposure, it is likely that 

potential impacts would be intermittent, temporary, and short-term in terms of duration or frequency. 

Exposure to active acoustic sound sources from G&G activities under Alternative A is expected to 

produce minor impacts to recreational fisheries activities.

Vessel Traffic

Under Alternative A, vessel traffic could increase in specific areas, thereby potentially interfering 

with recreational fishing, especially to those engaged in amateur and professional fishing tournaments. 

Recreational fisheries could be affected because an increase in G&G vessel traffic throughout the fishing 

grounds may prevent or limit access by recreational fishermen. Generally, most recreational anglers fish 

(usually trolling or drifting) according to specific habitats (bottom profile) or water conditions (Gulf 

Stream current). Catch rates may also be adversely affected, as they are not only dependent upon the 

numbers of fishes and location, but also on fishing techniques. Temporary loss of access to fishing 

grounds or lost fishing time could affect the success of recreational landings, with potential for economic 
4-170 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

impact to local businesses. Since recreational anglers are generally in small maneuverable boats using 

rod-and-reel or electric reels with only easily retrievable lengths of line in the water, avoiding large 

survey vessels would be easy. Vessel traffic or vessel disturbance issues have the potential to affect 

several recreational fishing activities within the AOI, although a precise determination of the economic 

impacts is problematic. Vessel traffic disturbance and how it relates to recreational fishing activities 

would be expected to produce impacts ranging from negligible to minor. 

A secondary impact associated with increased G&G vessel traffic is the potential for entanglement. 

Entanglement of recreational fishing gear would be limited to fishing line or possibly small numbers of 

crab traps cast or set in areas of increased vessel traffic such as from the jetty of a coastal inlet. To 

receive and record data, hydrophones are towed on streamers behind seismic vessels or positioned on the 

seafloor as autonomous nodes or cables, or, in rare instances, spaced at various depths in vertically 

positioned cables. In general, each type of G&G survey has its own special method of deploying 

equipment and collecting data. Depending on the method, each deployment approach can potentially 

impact recreational fishing activities in different ways. However, entanglement with towed seismic gear 

is much less likely for recreational fishing than described for commercial operations (Chapter 4.2.7.2.2). 

It is most likely that recreational anglers fishing from small boats would be able to actively avoid large 

seismic vessels towing hydrophone strings. In addition, public announcements such as Notice to 

Mariners played on marine VHF radio channel 16 would broadcast the timing and coordinates of any 

planned activity.

Inshore fisheries (i.e., estuaries and bays) are not expected to be affected by vessel traffic and 

entanglement issues because they are outside of the AOI. The exception would be coastal inlets, as 

mentioned above. Recreational anglers in coastal and offshore waters use a variety of fishing techniques, 

including trolling and bottom fishing throughout the AOI. It is estimated that G&G vessel activity and 

the associated vessel traffic would produce negligible to minor impacts to recreational fisheries. Effects 

are likely to be localized at a several locations, intermittent in frequency of occurrence, temporary, and 

short-term in nature.

Vessel Exclusion Zones

During seismic airgun surveys, operators typically attempt to maintain a vessel exclusion zone to 

protect towed streamers from other vessel traffic. The vessel exclusion zone would be maintained around 

the source vessel and arrays. The extent of the vessel exclusion zone would be dependent upon the 

equipment and number of streamers. A typical vessel exclusion zone for a 2D or 3D survey involving a 

towed array would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km (0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 

1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. The length of time that any particular point would be within the 

vessel exclusion zone would be about 1 hr, assuming a seismic vessel speed of 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). As 

discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.5, the vessel exclusion zone is simply an area monitored by a seismic survey 

operator and has no formal status or designation by the USCG. However, a Local Notice to Mariners 

would be issued that would specify the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance 

requirements.

If one or more seismic vessels are conducting a survey through a fishing ground, it may prevent 

recreational anglers from attempting to fish at specific fishing sites. The primary direct effect of a vessel 

exclusion zone to recreational fisheries would be loss of access to fishing grounds and time. Given the 

amount of area occupied by the vessel exclusion zones for these vessels there is a potential for very shortterm, temporary space-use conflicts between G&G activities and recreational fishing operations within 

the AOI. Because of these vessel exclusion zones, recreational fishermen may have to retrieve lines 

earlier than usual to avoid seismic vessel surveys (exclusion or safety zone), or stand off until the seismic 

vessel and its associated safety zone have moved past the fishing grounds. Under this Alternative, G&G 

activities and the associated vessel exclusion zones are expected to have no indirect effects on 

recreational fishery operations unless these activities cause recreational fishermen to concentrate their 

fishing efforts on other species or areas.

Impacts to recreational fisheries associated with vessel exclusion zones under Alternative A are 

expected to be negligible. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-171

4.2.8.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill ranging from 

1.2 to 7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean surface would disperse and weather. Volatile components of 

the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel used for operation of survey vessels is light and would float on 

the water surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel components to adhere 

to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink. Particulate matter contaminated 

with diesel fuel could eventually reach the seafloor either within or outside the AOI, depending upon spill 

location, water depth, ambient currents, and sinking rate.

Recreational fishing activity is not expected to be precluded from the area around the fuel source; 

spilled diesel would evaporate and disperse within a day or less. Given the relatively small size of the 

spill and the rapid loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and dispersion, a small diesel fuel spill at 

the surface would have little to no effect on recreational fisheries. An accidental fuel spill would be 

expected to result in negligible to minor impacts to recreational fisheries.

4.2.8.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The potential IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to 

affect recreational fisheries include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater 

noise from sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources; (2) vessel traffic; (3) vessel exclusion 

zones; and (4) a risk of a crude oil spill from a well blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other 

hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic 

events). 

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, four sources of potential 

impact to recreational fisheries have been identified in association with proposed G&G activities, 

including (1) active acoustic sound sources, (2) vessel traffic, (3) vessel exclusion zones, and 

(4) accidental fuel spills. Seismic sound, vessel traffic, and vessel exclusion zone effects of G&G 

activities in the AOI may result in fish behavior changes, reduction in access to recreational fishing

grounds, and loss of income for some businesses. Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.8.2 and 

4.2.8.3 determined that activities projected to occur under Alternative A would result in negligible or 

minor impacts to recreational fisheries, depending upon the IPF. The following analysis considers 

whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically with other impact sources 

from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

Primary underwater noise sources that could adversely affect recreational fisheries include those 

arising from military operations and G&G survey activities (i.e., sonars, explosives, active sound sources, 

including airguns and electromechanical sources, and vessel and equipment noise). A sizeable portion of 

the AOI includes military range complexes and civilian space program use areas (i.e., five operating 

areas, one NASA restricted area, multiple unexploded ordnance disposal areas; see Chapter 4.2.12.1.2) 

that, in total, extend almost the entire length of coast within the AOI. These military range complexes 

and civilian space program use areas include designated danger areas, restricted areas, and closure areas 

that limit access by vessel traffic, including recreational fishing activity, during specific times or prior 

to/during specific activities or operations; in some instances, areas may be completely closed to all vessel 

traffic. Impacts from sound-producing military operations and sound-producing G&G activities, 

including behavioral changes and avoidance by recreationally important fish species, are expected at 

select military range complexes, civilian space program use locations, and important fishing grounds, 
4-172 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

with likely impacts being intermittent, temporary, and short-term. Because of the spatial and temporal 

characteristics of military exercises that produce active acoustic sound and the nature of the sound sources 

(e.g., explosion, single pulse, limited multiple pulses), coupled with the exclusion of recreational fishing 

vessels from areas where military operations are planned or being conducted, impacts to recreational 

fisheries from military range complexes and civilian space program uses under the cumulative scenario 

are expected to be negligible. 

Vessel traffic noise from the remaining cumulative scenario sources (e.g., oil and gas exploration and 

development, commercial fishing, shipping and marine transportation) would also contribute to ambient 

noise levels throughout the AOI. Under the cumulative activities scenario, these vessel and equipment 

noise sources are expected to produce a negligible impact to recreational fisheries. 

Under Alternative A, active acoustic sound sources would be used in support of all BOEM program 

areas – oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals. Active acoustic sound sources employed 

under the oil and gas program may occur throughout the entire AOI with broad areas being surveyed for 

extended time periods. Active acoustic sound sources for renewable energy and marine minerals 

activities only would occur close to shore and would be of shorter survey duration. These impacts are 

expected to be spatially localized and short term in duration. Overall, exposure to active acoustic sound 

sources from G&G activities under Alternative A is expected to produce negligible to minor impacts to 

recreational fisheries. 

Because there are no significant noise impacts evident from the cumulative activities scenario, and 

there is no evidence of ambient noise levels approaching a threshold level where recreational fisheries

might be significantly affected, it is expected that there would be a minor incremental increase in impacts 

from active acoustic sound sources associated with the proposed action under the cumulative scenario.

Vessel Traffic

Vessel traffic within the AOI is expected to increase under the cumulative scenario. Over the past 

several years, documented increases in commercial vessel activity in U.S. east coast ports have been 

noted. Other cumulative activities including oil and gas development, marine minerals use, renewable 

energy development, geosequestration, LNG terminals, commercial fishing, military range complexes and 

civilian space program use, and dredged material disposal are also expected to contribute to increases in 

total vessel activity levels in the AOI. Impacts from vessel traffic associated with the cumulative scenario 

are expected to produce negligible to minor impacts to recreational fisheries. 

Under Alternative A, vessel traffic is expected to increase in specific areas, particularly where 

amateur and professional recreational fishing tournaments are being conducted. Vessel traffic or vessel 

disturbance issues have the potential to affect several recreational fishing activities within the AOI, 

although a precise determination of the economic impacts is problematic. Vessel traffic disturbance and 

how it relates to recreational fishing activities is expected to produce impacts ranging from negligible to

minor. 

In spite of the increasing levels of commercial vessel activity within the AOI, there are no significant 

vessel traffic impacts evident from the cumulative activities scenario. In addition, there is no evidence of 

vessel traffic levels approaching a threshold level where recreational fisheries might be significantly 

affected. Therefore, it is expected that there would be a small incremental increase in vessel traffic 

impacts associated with the proposed action under the cumulative scenario.

Vessel Exclusion Zones

Several activities expected to occur under the cumulative impacts scenario may utilize vessel 

exclusion zones. Drilling operations to be conducted as part of oil and gas development, vessel approach 

and departure fairways used as part of LNG terminals, and shipping and marine transportation vessel 

traffic corridors would exclude private vessel operations within prescribed distances from transiting 

vessels or operations. Impacts to recreational fisheries from the cumulative activities scenario are 

expected to be negligible. 

During seismic airgun surveys, the operator would typically attempt to maintain a vessel exclusion 

zone to protect towed streamers from other vessel traffic. Impacts to recreational fisheries associated with 

vessel exclusion zones under Alternative A would be expected to be negligible. Therefore, it is expected 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-173

that there would be a minor incremental increase in impacts to recreational fisheries associated with the 

proposed action under the cumulative scenario.

Accidental Fuel Spills

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to recreational fisheries would vary depending on the location and size of 

the spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts would be 

analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted by an operator. Potential 

impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be examined in the EA prior to any 

wells being drilled. In addition, a project-specific EA would require an analysis of site-specific 

information and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts from drilling activities and potential 

accidental crude oil spills. In addition, with the required mitigation measures in place and with oversight 

of these activities by the BSEE, an accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well is not anticipated; 

however, a spill still could occur. However, with these mitigation measures in place, the impacts to 

recreational fisheries from exploratory drilling operations would range from negligible to minor

depending on the location.

A sizeable amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including high 

levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial fishing activity would also contribute to 

overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and subsequent loss 

of fuel. The impact of accidental fuel spills arising from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario 

is expected to be negligible. 

The potential for fuel spills from vessels involved in the cumulative activities scenario is considered 

to be remote. In the event of a small diesel fuel spill from one or more of the cumulative activities, 

recreationally important fishes could be exposed to water soluble fractions of spilled diesel. Spill effects 

on recreational fishes, as well as spill response vessel operations, would have a direct but limited effect on 

recreational fishing activities. Given the size of the potential spill, a large-scale spill response involving 

multiple vessels is not expected. Therefore, impacts to recreational fisheries activities associated with a 

fuel spill from vessels under the cumulative activities scenario would be minor. 

The likelihood of a fuel spill during seismic airgun surveys or other G&G activities is considered to 

be remote, and the associated impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor 

(Chapter 4.2.8.3). Therefore, only a negligible incremental increase in impacts to recreational fisheries

from accidental fuel spills under Alternative A is expected under the cumulative scenario.

4.2.9. Recreational Resources

Coastal and marine habitats within and adjacent to the AOI make the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 

Coasts popular destinations for visitors from local communities and around the globe. An overview of 

the recreational resources, popular activities, and the economic contribution of recreation-related 

industries is provided in the following chapters. With the exception of recreational fishing, which is 

discussed separately in Chapter 4.2.8, most recreational activities in the region occur either along the 

coast or in nearshore (State) waters.

4.2.9.1. Description of the Affected Environment

The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts offer a diverse range of marine and coastal habitats, 

including sandy beaches and barrier islands, estuarine bays and sounds, inland water bodies, maritime 

forests, and marshland. Shorelines and features adjacent to the AOI include Cape Henlopen at the mouth 
4-174 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

of Delaware Bay; Chesapeake Bay, with shorelines along Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; the Outer 

Banks of North Carolina; the beaches, barrier islands, and coastal marshlands of South Carolina; the 

Georgia sea islands; extensive beaches and lagoon systems in northeastern Florida; and the 

Cape Canaveral region in east-central Florida. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of 

the types of recreational resources within the AOI and the types of activities associated with each of these 

types of resources. Examples are provided, but the descriptions are not all-inclusive.

Public lands are intermingled with developed areas throughout the region. There are five National 

Seashores along the coast, occupying a combined area of more than 80,000 ha (198,000 ac): Assateague 

Island in Maryland and Virginia, Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout in North Carolina, Cumberland Island 

in Georgia, and Canaveral in Florida. National Wildlife Refuges containing marine habitats occupy more 

than 84,000 ha (207,000 ac) of the Mid- and South Atlantic Coasts. These areas are further described in 

Chapter 4.2.11, which includes a complete listing of national and State parks, seashores, marine 

sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, and other protected marine areas. Table 4-33 lists selected recreational 

areas along the coast of each state, including national and State parks, seashores, recreation areas, and 

wildlife refuges. Table 4-34 summarizes the types of recreational activities that occur in various offshore 

and coastal areas.

Barrier island systems with associated recreational beaches exist along much of the coast. These 

barrier systems consist of sandy strands (barrier islands) that provide recreational beaches open to the 

Atlantic Ocean, with a protected lagoon and marshlands between the barrier island and the mainland. The 

sandy beaches are popular destinations for swimming, sunbathing, and surfing. The lagoons provide a 

low energy environment for fishing, kayaking, boating, and wildlife viewing. 

Fishing piers and boat landings are located on both the lagoon and beach sides of the barrier systems. 

Public beach facilities are typically located on the ocean side of the barrier island. Golf courses are 

popular, especially along the South Atlantic Coast, and are typically located on the mainland, although 

some are located on barrier islands (e.g., Hilton Head, South Carolina; Amelia Island, Florida).

Natural harbors and bays of varying sizes are located in the AOI. These serve as centers of 

recreational boating and fishing and support activities in the coastal, nearshore, and offshore areas. 

Boat-based activities include fishing, diving, sailing, and natural resource viewing. Diving is most 

popular at the many shipwrecks and artificial reefs in nearshore and, to a lesser extent, offshore waters. 

Natural hard bottom areas such as Gray’s Reef NMS offshore Georgia are also a destination for divers 

(Gray’s Reef National Marine Santuary, 2011a). Additional information regarding Gray’s Reef NMS and 

the other marine sanctuaries located in the AOI is included in Chapter 4.2.11.

Table 4-35 shows the contribution of marine-based tourism and recreation to state economies in 

2004, as represented by employment and wages. Data are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, and marine-based tourism and recreation data were 

obtained from establishments in selected sectors (amusement and recreation services, boat dealers, eating 

and drinking places, hotels and lodging places, marinas, recreational vehicle parks and campsites, scenic 

water tours, sporting goods retailers, and zoos and aquaria) and zip codes (areas adjacent to the ocean)

(Kildow et al., 2009). Marine-based tourism and recreation represent between 0.51 percent (Georgia) and 

3.52 percent (Florida) of state employment and a slightly lesser share of wages, showing that tourism and 

recreation sectors tend to be an important source of employment for low-wage labor.

Table 4-36 shows that in the case of counties adjacent to the coast, the leisure and hospitality sector 

(defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the sum of North American Industry Classification System 

codes 71 [arts, entertainment and recreation] and 72 [accommodation and food services]) can employ up 

to 19.31 percent (South Carolina) of the total employment of those counties.

4.2.9.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

Potential impacts of routine G&G activities involved in Alternative A on recreational resources are 

evaluated in this chapter. The scope of G&G survey activity, equipment types, and geographic coverage 

were summarized in Chapter 3. Preliminary screening has identified the following IPFs related to G&G 

activities as potential sources of impact to recreational resources: (1) vessel exclusion zones, and 

(2) trash and debris (Table 4-2). All of these IPFs are associated with all types of G&G activities, as 

described in Chapter 3.5. 

Activities related to G&G investigations would take place both offshore and in nearshore and coastal 

waters close to the shoreline. The G&G activities would include various types of surveys (e.g., deep 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-175

penetration seismic, electromechanical), deep stratigraphic and shallow test drilling, and various types of 

bottom sampling. These surveys would occur under all three OCS programs (oil and gas, renewable 

energy, and marine minerals) and would include those areas where site characterization surveys are 

required for potential transmission lines or pipelines that might come onshore as part of future offshore 

projects. Thus, recreational activities in the offshore and nearshore environment (e.g., diving, fishing, 

boating, sightseeing) and along the coastline (e.g., swimming and other beach activities) could be located 

in proximity to G&G survey areas and could be affected by vessel exclusion zones and trash and debris. 

Even though in lagoons, along the mainland coastline behind the barrier islands, and embayments and 

harbors are not included in the AOI, recreational activities in these areas could be affected to a lesser 

extent from trash and debris associated with offshore or nearshore G&G activities that is carried into 

inland waters by tides.

4.2.9.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to recreational resources would include those where little to no measurable 

impacts are observed or expected. The G&G activities would neither interfere with nor diminish the use 

of recreational resources.

Minor impacts to recreational resources would include those that are detectable but are of short-term 

duration and are neither severe nor extensive. Minor impacts to recreational resources would include 

interference with the use of, or diminishment to, recreational resources for a short period of time 

(i.e., days).

Moderate impacts to recreational resources would be detectable and extensive but not severe or 

detectable, short-term or long-lasting, localized and severe. Moderate impacts to recreational resources 

would include those where G&G activities prohibit the use of recreational resources for up to a period of 

weeks.

Major impacts to recreational resources would be detectable, long-lasting in duration, spatially 

extensive, and severe in nature. Major impacts to recreational resources would include those where G&G

activities prohibit the long-term use of recreational resources over a large area (i.e., for a period of months 

to years).

4.2.9.2.2. Evaluation

Vessel Exclusion Zones

Vessel exclusion zones would exclude recreational and commercial vessels as well as diving or other 

activities within an established zone surrounding the G&G activity. The vessel exclusion zones would be 

temporary, with the duration and areal extent dependent on the type of activity. The activities that 

involve towing equipment through the water column, such as the seismic airgun surveys, would require 

an extensive vessel exclusion zone; activities occurring over a single point, such as a drilling or benthic 

sampling activity, would also have to be avoided. However, the vessel exclusion zone for a seismic 

airgun survey would be larger but would move with the survey vessel, while drilling activity would 

require avoidance of a smaller area for a longer period of time. As an example, a typical vessel exclusion 

zone for a 2D or 3D survey involving a towed array would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 

1.2 km (0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. The length of time that 

any particular point would be within the vessel exclusion zone would be approximately 1 hr. Thus, all 

impacts would be of short duration (i.e., hours to days). As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.5, the vessel 

exclusion zone is simply an area monitored by a seismic airgun survey operator and has no formal status 

or designation by the USCG. However, a Local Notice to Mariners would be issued that would specify 

the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements for both vessels and divers. 

In addition, as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.3.2, sound-producing activities (such as seismic surveys) 

proposed in or near the boundaries of an NMS would be assigned a setback distance as a condition of 

BOEM permit approval or authorization. Setback distances will be determined prior to any soundproducing survey activity by BOEM and in consultation with the Sanctuary Superintendent pursuant to 

Section 304(d) of the NMSA.

Impacts on recreational activities could be more extensive if the vessel exclusion zone was 

established over a critical sport fishing period. For example, if a vessel exclusion zone were established 
4-176 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

in a fishing ground or along a species’ migration route during the time when a recreationally important 

species was present, recreational users would have limited access to these resources. However, any vessel 

exclusion zone would be of short duration (i.e., hours to days), thus minimizing these types of impacts; 

therefore, impacts are expected to range from no impact to negligible. 

Trash and Debris

Survey, sampling, and drilling operations generate trash comprising paper, plastic, wood, glass, and 

metal. Most trash is associated with galley and offshore food service operations. Offshore operators have 

developed and implemented trash and debris reduction and improved handling practices to reduce the 

amount of offshore trash that could potentially be lost into the marine environment. All survey vessels 

performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with Federal regulations, which 

include the requirements of MARPOL 73/78 Annex V, Regulations for the Control of Pollution by 

Garbage from Ships, as implemented by 33 CFR part 151, which is designed to protect the marine 

environment from various types of garbage generated onboard vessels. In addition, all authorizations for 

shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. The guidance would be similar 

to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 

2012). Therefore, with required compliance with Federal regulations and the requirements of MARPOL, 

the amount of trash and debris dumped offshore would be minimal, as only accidental loss of trash and 

debris is anticipated. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.7, USCG and USEPA have regulations requiring 

programs to minimize accidental loss of solid waste. BOEM has also developed guidance instructing

operators to exercise caution in the handling and disposal of small items and packaging materials, 

requiring the posting of placards at prominent locations on offshore vessels and structures, and mandating 

a yearly marine trash and debris awareness training and certification process. 

Trash and debris accidentally released from vessels during survey activities could wash up on beaches 

and into harbors, embayments, and coastal salt marshes. Trash and debris on beaches would constitute 

aesthetic degradation of the recreational resource and adversely affect the current recreational use of the 

beach. Further, the presence of trash and debris could also result in a long-term loss of reputation as a 

pristine tourist destination. Trash and debris can also present a safety hazard, both on beaches and in 

boating and fishing areas, where it could foul boat engines and fishing gear. All survey vessels 

performing work within the U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with Federal regulations, 

which implement MARPOL 73/78. Within MARPOL Annex V, Regulations for the Control of Pollution 

by Garbage from Ships, as implemented by 33 CFR part 151, are regulations designed to protect the 

marine environment from various types of garbage generated on board vessels. Therefore, the amount of 

trash and debris dumped offshore would be expected to be minimal, as only accidental loss of trash and 

debris is anticipated that could interfere with recreational use and is expected to result in a negligible to 

minor impact, depending on location.

4.2.9.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Based on USCG spill statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes diesel 

spill volumes in the range of 1.2-7.1 bbl. Accidental events resulting from a vessel collision and 

subsequent diesel fuel release would have limited impacts on recreational resources, based on the small 

amounts of fuel released. The potential does exist for any diesel fuel released to be carried to recreational 

areas by waves and currents (i.e., if the accident occurs close to shore) which could cause a sheen on the 

water. However, diesel fuel spilled on the ocean surface is expected to float and disperse via wind and 

wave activity and weather (i.e., light aromatic fractions would evaporate). Spill prevention and response 

measures would also be available to contain the small quantities that would be discharged. Given the 

small quantities of potential discharge and dispersal processes, the resultant impact is expected to be a 

sheen on water, which is very unlikely to reach beaches.

As described in Chapter 3.5.2.1, the risk of accidental fuel spills is expected to be remote. The 

impacts would depend on the size and location of the spill, in addition to the meterological conditions, 

which would affect the rate of weathering and transport. If a spill were to occur, which would likely 

involve a collision with fuel release, it would limit the access of recreational uses and limit the full use of 

the recreational resource for a short period of time. Given the very low probability of a sufficient release 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-177

to impact recreational resources, the impact of a diesel fuel spill on recreational resources is expected to 

be negligible to minor depending on timing and location of the spill.

Spill vessel response activity also has the potential to adversely affect recreational resources. 

However, given the size of the potential spill, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not 

expected. Small diesel spills (500-5,000 gal) usually evaporate and disperse within a day or less, even in 

cold water (USDOC, NOAA, 2006); thus, seldom is there any oil on the surface for responders to recover. 

Therefore, impacts to recreational resources from a small accidental fuel spill are expected to be 

negligible to minor, depending on the location of the spill.

4.2.9.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to affect 

recreational resources are vessel exclusion zones, trash and debris, and accidental events (smaller 

accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). Three IPFs are associated with all 

types of G&G activities, including (1) vessel exclusion zones, (2) trash and debris, and (3) accidental fuel 

spills.

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.9.2 and 4.2.9.3 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative A would result in negligible or minor impacts to recreational resources. The 

following analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically 

with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact.

Vessel Exclusion Zones

Several activities expected to occur under the cumulative impacts scenario may utilize vessel 

exclusion zones. Drilling operations to be conducted as part of oil and gas development, vessel approach 

and departure fairways used as part of LNG terminals, and shipping and marine transportation vessel 

traffic corridors would exclude private vessel operations within prescribed distances from transiting 

vessels or operations. In addition, G&G seismic survey activities would employ a vessel exclusion zone

to protect towed streamers from other vessel traffic. The vessel exclusion zone would be maintained 

around the source vessel and arrays during seismic airgun surveys.

A sizeable portion of the AOI includes military range complexes and civilian space program use areas 

that include designated danger areas, restricted areas, and closure areas that limit access by vessel traffic, 

including recreational activities, during specific times or prior to/during specific activities or operations; 

in some instances, areas may be completely closed to all vessel traffic. Establishment of additional vessel 

exclusion zones under Alternative A would be temporary, with the duration and areal extent dependent on 

the type of activity. Because there are no significant impacts evident from the cumulative activities 

scenario, and a vessel exclusion zone’s primary impact is a short-term displacement of use of a 

recreational resource, it is expected that the impacts associated with the proposed action would result in a 

small incremental increase in potential impact to recreational resources under the cumulative scenario.

Trash and Debris

Companies operating offshore have developed and implemented trash and debris reduction and 

improved handling practices over the last several years to reduce the amount of offshore trash that could 

potentially be lost to the marine environment. These improved practices would also apply to all activities 

included under the cumulative scenario. With improved trash handling practices and the required 

compliance with Federal regulations, which include MARPOL and Annex V requirements, the amount of 

trash and debris dumped offshore would be minimal; only accidental loss of trash and debris is 

anticipated. In addition, BOEM would develop guidance similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine 

Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012), which would include guidance for 
4-178 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

marine debris awareness (Appendix C). This guidance would instruct operators to exercise caution in the 

handling and disposal of small items and packaging materials, require the posting of placards at 

prominent locations on offshore vessels and structures, and mandate a yearly marine trash and debris 

awareness training and certification process. 

Within the cumulative activities scenario, the operation of survey vessels presents the potential for an 

incremental increase in the release of trash and debris in the coastal marine environment. All 

authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness. The guidance 

would be similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”)

(USDOI, BSEE, 2012). However, with the protective measures in place for commercial vessels operating 

offshore to minimize trash and debris discharges, and from looking at the types of debris that is typically 

found along beaches, it is expected that much of this trash is not generated from the activities included in 

the cumulative scenario (Ocean Conservancy, 2011). Since there are no significant impacts evident from 

the cumulative activities scenario and there are protective measures in place to prevent trash and debris 

from being dumped offshore, it is expected that the impacts associated with the proposed action would 

result in a small incremental increase in potential impact to recreational resources under the cumulative 

scenario. Impacts from trash and debris under Alternative A would not produce time or space crowding, 

would not result in significant synergistic (compounding) impacts, would not produce widespread 

exceedance of exposure thresholds, and would not result in the progressive loss of recreational resources 

in the AOI.

Accidental Fuel Spills

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to recreational resources would vary depending on the location and size 

of the spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts would be 

analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted by an operator. Potential 

impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be examined in the EA prior to any 

wells being drilled. In addition, a project-specific EA would require an analysis of site-specific 

information and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts from drilling activities and potential 

accidental crude oil spills. With the required mitigation measures in place and with oversight of these 

activities by BSEE, an accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well is not anticipated; however, a 

spill still could occur. With these mitigation measures in place, the impacts to recreational resources from 

exploratory drilling operations would be expected to be negligible to minor, depending on the location, 

timing, and size of those operations. 

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including 

high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing activity would also 

contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and 

subsequent loss of fuel. Spill effects on recreational resources, as well as spill response vessel operations, 

would have a direct but limited effect on recreational activities. Therefore, the risk of accidental fuel 

spills arising from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario is expected to range from negligible to 

minor, depending on the location.

The likelihood of a fuel spill during seismic airgun surveys or other G&G activities is expected to be 

remote, and the associated impacts would be expected to be negligible to minor, depending on location 

(Chapter 4.2.9.3). Given the size of the potential spill (1.2-7.1 bbl), a large-scale spill response 

involving multiple vessels is not expected. Small diesel spills (500-5,000 gal) usually evaporate and 

disperse within a day or less, even in cold water (USDOC, NOAA, 2006); thus, seldom is there any oil on 

the surface for responders to recover. The impacts to recreational resources from spill response and 

cleanup activities associated with fuel spills from vessels under the cumulative activities scenario are 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-179

expected to be negligible to minor depending on location. The G&G activities expected under 

Alternative A and the associated accidental fuel spills, should one occur, would produce a minor 

incremental increase in spill impacts.

4.2.10. Archaeological Resources

4.2.10.1. Description of the Affected Environment

Submerged cultural resources within the AOI include shipwrecks that date from early exploration and 

settlement of North America by Europeans as early as the 16th and 17th centuries. Submerged prehistoric 

sites dating between 30,000 and 3,000 before present (B.P.) may also be present within the AOI, 

depending on regional landform variation.

The AOI includes State and Federal waters (outside of estuaries) from Delaware Bay south to 

approximately Cape Canaveral, Florida, extending 648 km (350 nmi) seaward from the MHW line. In 

this discussion, “nearshore” refers to waters from the shoreline to the 100-m isobath. “Offshore” refers to 

the zone extending from the 100-m isobath to the outer boundary of the AOI.

4.2.10.1.1. Historic Shipwrecks

European voyagers have been exploring the Atlantic seaboard since A.D. 1000, but it was not until 

the 16th century that expeditions reached the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. Shipwrecks 

within the AOI date from the 16th century until modern times.

Estimates regarding the volume of shipwrecks and obstructions in the AOI were calculated utilizing 

various databases including the NOAA AWOIS, the NOAA Aids to Navigation (NavAids), the USCG 

Hazards to Navigation, and the Global Maritime Wrecks Database (GMWD). Information from the 

AWOIS database includes position (latitude/longitude), feature description, and any known historic and 

or descriptive details. Position accuracy of AWOIS wrecks and/or obstructions is highly variable and can 

be as much as a full kilometer from the actual wreck and/or obstruction. The NOAA NavAids database 

identifies wreck locations, obstructions, platforms, submerged pilings, navigational aids, and 

light/channel markers. The USCG Hazards to Navigation database identifies obstructions, wreck 

locations, buoys, and unidentified target locations. The GMWD provides a range of information for each 

site including wreck name, wreck nationality, date of sinking, depth of wreck, vessel category, gross tons, 

sinking agent, nominal accuracy of wreck location, source of wreck, nationality of the vessel that sunk the 

wreck, and more.

A variety of secondary sources relative to shipwrecks within the AOI were also reviewed, including 

Lytle and Holdcamper (1975), Marx (1987), and Berman (1973). Lytle and Holdcamper (1975) (also 

known as the Lytle-Holdcamper List) was originally compiled in 1952 and reprinted in 1975 and is a 

comprehensive register of most steam vessels in the U.S. from 1790-1868. The primary sources, 

compiled by William M. Lytle, include abstracts of registers, licenses, and enrollment documents sent or 

surrendered to the Bureau of Navigation. The list also includes a section titled “Losses of United States 

Merchant Vessels, 1790–1868” that provides vessel name, tonnage, year built, nature of wreck, date, 

place, and lives lost. Over 3,800 vessels are listed as lost during the time period in question. Careful 

attention was given to location of a specific wreck site (Charleston, South Carolina; off Charleston; etc.). 

While the reference is general in nature and only covers American steam vessels through the Civil War, it 

can offer an indication of potential losses within the AOI. Berman’s work includes approximately 

13,000 shipwrecks within American waters (excluding vessels less than 50 gross tons). The encyclopedia 

covers vessels dating from the pre-Revolutionary era to modern times, from coastal waters to inland 

waterways.

It should be noted that many of the shipwreck databases and secondary sources overlap, generating 

repetitiveness in data. Additionally, these primary and secondary sources are far from comprehensive. 

They tend to focus on large merchant vessels and omit the smaller coastal trading, fishing, and other 

locally produced vernacular watercraft that may be present in the nearshore zone of the AOI. By omitting 

smaller coastal watercraft, the potential for shipwrecks in the nearshore zone would certainly be 

underestimated.

Review of all databases and secondary sources identified 4,676 known wrecks, obstructions, 

archaeological sites, occurrences, or sites marked as “unknown” in the AOI (Figure 4-31). Of these sites, 
4-180 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4,266 (91%) are within the 100-m (328-ft) depth contour (nearshore zone) and 410 (9%) are in deeper 

waters (offshore zone). Even though diver investigation of many obstructions identified as “unknown” 

are eventually identified as modern debris, they cannot be ruled out as potential submerged cultural 

resources. A study by TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) (TRC, 2012) reports there are 

approximately 7,900 wrecks located within the Federal portion of the Atlantic OCS that borders the seven 

states in the AOI (includes all of Florida), and the distribution of these wrecks appears to be closely 

correlated to vessel traffic, especially in the vicinity of port approaches and navigational hazards.

4.2.10.1.2. Prehistoric Resources

Submerged cultural resources also include prehistoric archaeological sites. Based on current 

research, sea levels were approximately 70 m (230 ft) lower than at present at the start of the Paleo-Indian 

period (30,000 B.P.) and were approximately 30 m (98 ft) lower than at present around 10,000 B.P., 

rising to nearly 10 m (33 ft) below present by 6,000 B.P. (TRC, 2012). Over the past 2,500 years in 

Florida, sea level has risen at an average rate of about 3.8 cm (1.5 in) per century. However, since 1932 

(when tide-gauge monitoring stations were installed), Florida has incurred a 22.9 cm (9-in) relative rise in 

sea level. It has been postulated that this accelerated rise is the result of warming (and expansion) of 

water in the western North Atlantic Ocean (Broward County Climate Change Task Force, 2009).

The possibility of locating submerged prehistoric sites would be greatest in the nearshore zone (less 

than 100-m [328-ft] water depth) because some of this area would have been exposed land during the 

period of human occupation. In a recent study regarding submerged prehistoric cultural resources on the 

Atlantic OCS, TRC (2012) identified high sensitivity zones extending from depths of 0-70 m (0-230 ft) 

offshore the Mid-Atlantic and Georgia Bight and from depths of 0-60 m (0-197 ft) offshore Florida. Low 

sensitivity zones were from depths of 70-120 m (230-394 ft) offshore the Mid-Atlantic, 70-110 m 

(230-361 ft) offshore the Georgia Bight, and 60-120 m (197-394 ft) offshore Florida. Areas deeper than 

120 m (394 ft) offshore the Mid-Atlantic and Florida (or deeper than 110 m [361 ft] in the Georgia Bight) 

can be expected as having no sensitivity (TRC, 2012).

Along the Mid-Atlantic and as far south as the border between Georgia and Florida, rapid sea level 

rise may have increased the potential for preservation of Paleo-Indian and Archaic sites located in the 

vicinity of paleochannels. Off the coast of Florida, within the sensitivity areas identified by TRC (2012), 

there is low potential for Paleo-Indian and early Archaic sites in water depths greater than 10 m (33 ft).

Limited information regarding late Pleistocene/early Holocene sites and settlement patterns make it 

difficult to accurately predict the location of submerged prehistoric cultural resources. As a result, 

information from Archaic coastal terrestrial sites and research on paleolandscapes have enabled 

researchers to identify which sort of land forms (seen using high-resolution, remote-sensing equipment) 

are likely to yield evidence of submerged prehistoric cultural resources. The most commonly seen and 

widely distributed on the Atlantic OCS are relict river channels found off the coast of Virginia, South 

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. As depicted by TRC (2012), these geographic features tend to have 

higher concentrations of submerged prehistoric sites (Figure 4-32).

Until recently, the earliest material culture that has been identified in the Paleo-Indian period in the 

U.S., called Clovis, is represented by distinctly basal fluted projectile points that date as far back as 

12,500 B.P. This Paleo-Indian settlement pattern is described as semi-nomadic within a defined territory, 

reliant on reliable fresh water sources and cryptocrystalline raw material sources, exploiting large and 

small game along with wild plants. As a result of a semi-nomadic settlement pattern, Paleo-Indian sites 

that are most visible in the archaeological record would likely be located in proximity to fresh water 

sources that would have been visited repeatedly. Material related to Clovis culture can be found 

throughout most of the U.S.

Recently, there have been sites discovered that could potentially pre-date Clovis culture. Sites such 

as Cactus Hill and Saltville in Virginia show evidence of Clovis and what appears to be pre-Clovis 

occupation. Along the South Carolina side of the Savannah River, ongoing excavations at the Topper 

Site appear to be revealing a distinct assemblage of multifaceted flake tools that may indicate a pre-Clovis 

occupation (Waters et al., 2009). It has been hypothesized by numerous researchers that the original 

routes taken to populate the U.S. might have followed a coastal migration. Based on bathymetric 

research, it is likely that land beneath the Chesapeake Bay contains Paleo-Indian sites (Blanton, 1996).

Conditions necessary for preservation of intact Paleo-Indian sites along the Atlantic OCS are variable 

and depend on geomorphological conditions and the speed of sea level rise. Current research on regional 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-181

geology, relative sea level changes, and marine transgression are providing useful data concerning the 

possibility that there may be intact Paleo-Indian sites submerged along the Atlantic OCS. These 

submerged Paleo-Indian sites would most likely be found in the vicinity of paleochannels or river terraces 

that offer the highest potential of site preservation.

4.2.10.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

Routine activities in the oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals programs were discussed 

in Chapter 3. Those activities that do not impact the seafloor (e.g., seismic survey activity) should have 

no effect on submerged cultural resources. Preliminary screening has identified the following IPFs 

related to G&G activities as potential sources of impact to archaeological resources: (1) seafloor 

disturbance and (2) drilling discharges (Chapter 4.1.1, Table 4-2). Oil and gas program activities that 

have been identified in association with seafloor disturbance include anchor placement (i.e., 3D controlled 

source electromagnetic anchors with bottom receivers, 4D time lapse surveys, and MT survey anchors 

with bottom receivers), coring (i.e., geologic coring), and drilling (i.e., COST wells, shallow test drilling, 

and VSP). Within the renewable energy development program, seafloor disturbance includes PCPT, 

anchoring (i.e., bottom-founded monitoring buoys), coring, and grab sampling. In the marine minerals 

program, seafloor disturbance is expected from coring.

4.2.10.2.1. Significance Criteria

The NHPA (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.) established a national program to preserve the country’s 

historical and cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the 

effects of their actions on historic properties and provide the President’s Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on a proposed action before it is implemented. 

Regulations for implementing the Section 106 process are provided in 36 CFR part 800. Both State and 

Federal guidelines for cultural resources recognize that buildings, structures, objects, districts, 

archaeological sites, and cultural landscapes can be historically significant. Under NHPA Section 106 

(36 CFR § 800.16), a historic property is “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or 

object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.” Districts include 

the property types known as cultural landscapes (historic, rural, designed, etc.). To be eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), these property types must be over 50 years old and meet at 

least one of the NRHP significance evaluation criteria (36 CFR § 60.4) to be considered a historic 

property, and the property must also possess integrity. Specific aspects or types of integrity include 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The NRHP historic properties 

meet one or more of the following evaluation criteria:

• the property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history (Criterion A);

• the property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past 

(Criterion B); 

• the property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or 

represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction (Criterion C); and/or

• the property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to 

prehistory or history (Criterion D).

In consideration of the NRHP criteria noted above and the sensitivity of submerged cultural resources

to disturbance, the following significance criteria are utilized in this analysis.

Negligible impacts to archaeological resources would include those where little to no measurable 

impacts are observed or expected. Negligible impacts would also include any effects upon suspected 

archaeological resources on the seafloor that are determined to be modern debris. 

Minor impacts to archaeological resources would include those that are detectable but are neither 

severe nor extensive. Minor impacts to archaeological resources would include impacts arising from any 

activity that results in the alteration of, or causes a change to, stable environmental conditions for a 
4-182 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

significant submerged cultural resource. Further, such alteration or change would not change the 

significance of a submerged cultural resource or directly or indirectly result in the loss of diagnostic 

features or research potential of a submerged cultural resource.

Moderate impacts to archaeological resources would be detectable and extensive but not severe. 

Moderate impacts to archaeological resources would include impacts arising from any activity that results 

in the alteration of, or causes a change to, stable environmental conditions for a significant submerged 

cultural resource. However, in contrast to minor impacts, such alteration or change has the potential to 

change the significance of a submerged cultural resource or directly or indirectly result in the loss of 

diagnostic features or research potential of a submerged cultural resource.

Major impacts to archaeological resources would be detectable, extensive, and severe. Major impacts 

to archaeological resources would include any G&G activity that results in the permanent loss or damage 

to diagnostic features or research potential of a submerged cultural resource, disturbance of human 

remains associated with identified submerged cultural resources, adverse change in the significance of a 

submerged cultural resource, or exposure of previously buried features to harmful environmental 

conditions.

4.2.10.2.2. Evaluation

Seafloor Disturbance

Placement of equipment (e.g., anchors, nodes, cables, sensors, bottom-founded monitoring buoys) on 

the seafloor has the potential to damage any significant archaeological resources present. The renewable 

energy program would include 7-38 bottom-founded monitoring buoys and is expected to have an impact

as large as 129 ha (319 ac), if all proposed monitoring buouys are installed. Conducting 3D control 

source electromagnetic surveys and MT surveys would impact the seafloor where anchors and receivers 

are deployed. The affected area would be spread out but would typically be less than one OCS block in 

size.

Bottom sampling activities have the potential to affect both historic and prehistoric archaeological

resources via physical damage. Geologic coring, grab sampling, and the use of a piezocene penetrometer 

are expected to impact approximately 10 m2 (108 ft2) of the seafloor for each sample collected. Sampling 

activities are expected in all three program areas.

COST wells and shallow test drilling that is associated with exploration activities are expected to 

impact the seafloor over an area greater than or equal to 2 ha (5 ac) per well, primarily through the 

physical coring of the sediment. Secondarily, deposition of drill muds and cuttings may bury artifacts, 

making their future detection more difficult.

The depth distribution of submerged cultural resources is an important consideration when evaluating 

the potential for impact. While historic shipwrecks may occur at any water depth within the AOI, 

prehistoric resources are depth-limited by region, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.10.1.2. Further, highest 

probabilities for encountering submerged prehistoric sites vary within the AOI, primarily by depth 

(e.g., 0-70 m [0-230 ft] offshore the Mid-Atlantic and within the Georgia Bight; 0-60 m [0-197 ft] 

offshore Florida) and location (i.e., higher probability of sites within relict paleochannels). In general, 

areas deeper than 120 m (394 ft) offshore the Mid-Atlantic and Florida or deeper than 110 m (361 ft) in 

the Georgia Bight can be expected as having no sensitivity for the presence of and no potential for impact 

to prehistoric resources. Additionally, any seafloor disturbance in water depths >110-120 m 

(>361-394 ft) would likely have no potential for impact to submerged prehistoric resources but would 

have impact potential for historic shipwrecks. In shallower depths, it is most likely that submerged 

prehistoric resources would likely be found in the vicinity of paleochannels or similar geomorphic 

features that posess a higher potential for preservation relative to other areas.

Because of the rich maritime history and potential for submerged prehistoric resources in the AOI, all 

activities that disturb the seafloor have potential to impact previously unrecorded cultural resources. The 

potential areas of impact for survey operations are limited to small widely dispersed areas caused by 

coring, nodes and ocean bottom cable surveys, vertical cable surveys, and anchor deployments associated 

with each of these activities. The potential for impacts to archaeological resources resulting from G&G

surveys would be further reduced through predisturbance survey plan reviews provided by BOEM and 

avoidance buffers required around any potential historic property. The seafloor disturbance associated 

with these survey activities would likely result in negligible impacts to archaeological resources. If, 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-183

during the course of G&G activity, it is determined that a potential shipwreck or prehistoric site has been 

located, the operator would immediately halt operations and take the necessary steps to ensure that the 

site is not disturbed further, including notifying BOEM. 

BOEM would require site-specific information regarding potential archaeological resources prior to 

approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM would use this information to ensure that physical impacts to 

archaeological resources are avoided.

For the renewable energy program, BOEM has issued Guidelines for Providing Geological and 

Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585 (USDOI, BOEM, 

2012b). The guidelines specify that a site characterization survey must reliably cover any portion of the 

site that would be affected by seafloor-disturbing activities. The guidelines recommend avoidance as a 

primary mitigation strategy for objects of historical or archaeological significance.

Drilling Discharges

It is unlikely that archaeological resources would be affected by drilling discharges in the AOI during 

the time period of the Programmatic EIS. The oil and gas scenario for the Mid- and South Atlantic 

Planning Areas predicts that as many as three COST wells and five shallow test drilling activities would 

occur during the time period covered by the Programmatic EIS. Anticipated impacts to archaeological

resources from drilling include discharge of drilling fluids, cuttings, and localized accumulation of 

cement slurry. Based on the limited impacts of these activities to benthic communities as discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.1.2, it is likely that the impact to archaeological resources would also be negligible. 

Avoidance of archaeological resources and immediate reporting of unanticipated discoveries to BOEM 

are expected to prevent a serious impact to archaeological resources. Given the BOEM requirement for 

site-specific information regarding archaeological resources, impacts from drilling discharges in the AOI 

are expected to be negligible. 

4.2.10.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill ranging from 

1.2 to 7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean surface would disperse and weather. Volatile components of 

the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel used for operation of survey vessels is light and would float on 

the water surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel components to adhere 

to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink. Particulate matter contaminated 

with diesel fuel could eventually reach the seafloor, either within or outside the AOI, depending upon 

spill location, water depth, ambient currents, and sinking rate. However, given the relatively small size of 

the spill and the loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and dispersion, a small diesel fuel spill at 

the surface would have no effect on the seafloor and would not require seafloor cleanup activity. An 

accidental diesel fuel spills would be expected to result in negligible impacts to archaeological resources. 

4.2.10.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and 10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative 

impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs identified under Alterntive A that have the potential to affect 

archaeological resources include (1) seafloor disturbance, (2) drilling discharges, and (3) accidental fuel 

spills.

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.10.2 and 4.2.10.3 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative A would result in negligible impacts to archaeological resources. The following 

analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically with other 

impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact.
4-184 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Seafloor Disturbance

Within the cumulative activities scenario, the placement of equipment (e.g., anchors, nodes, cables, 

sensors, bottom-founded monitoring buoys) on the seafloor has the potential to damage archaeological

resources present. Submerged cultural resources may be impacted by activities related to any of the ten 

cumulative activities that involve bottom-disturbing operations.

For those activities under their purview, BOEM has existing regulations (NTLs), guidelines, BMPs, 

and permit authorizations containing conditions of approvals (COAs) regarding submerged cultural 

resources and their preservation. Because of the rarity of non-renewable submerged cultural resources 

and the high potential for information loss and damage, cumulative impacts to submerged archaeological

resources are potentially significant. However, all activities under BOEM purview that have the potential 

to disturb the seafloor would be subject to guidance for submitting site characterization surveys, which 

include the identification of potentially impacted cultural resources. Areas identified as having potential 

historic shipwreck or prehistoric archaeological resources will be assigned an avoidance buffer for all 

cumulative activities. If, during the course of G&G activity, it is determined that a potential shipwreck or 

prehistoric site has been located, the operator must immediately halt operations and take the necessary 

steps to ensure that the site is not disturbed further. BOEM must also be notified within 48 hr of the 

discovery. If existing protective measures and lease stipulations are followed, then no adverse impacts to 

submerged cultural resources are anticipated, and impacts to archaeologicalresources from seafloor 

disturbance associated with the cumulative activities scenario would be negligible. However, BOEM 

requirements do not protect the resources from activities outside of BOEM jurisdiction (i.e., commercial 

and recreational fishing, telecommunication cable installation, and dredged material disposal).

Similarly, G&G activities would be conducted with similar information gathering, avoidance, and 

reporting requirements. As with the cumulative scenario, if existing protective measures and lease 

stipulations are followed, then no adverse impacts to submerged cultural resources are anticipated, and 

impacts to archaeological resources from seafloor disturbance associated with Alternative A would be 

negligible. 

Because there are strict protective measures in place to protect undiscovered artifacts, and there is no 

evidence that cumulative G&G activities would damage archaeological resources, it is expected that there 

would be a minor incremental increase in impacts to archaeological resources from seafloor disturbance 

under the cumulative scenario. In any case that avoidance is not possible, efforts to minimize and 

mitigate these effects will be put in place through consultation with the appropriate parties during 

individual Section 106 reviews. Cumulative impacts to archaeological resources from G&G-related 

seafloor disturbance are expected to be negligible. 

Drilling Discharges

Cumulative scenario activities that would include discharges of drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and other 

effluents from drilling rigs (e.g., oil and gas development, geosequestration) would require BOEM 

authorization and the submittal and agency review of site-specific information regarding archaeological

resources prior to activity approval. It is expected that BOEM’s review would help to ensure that 

physical impacts to sensitive archaeological resources are avoided and that these resources are protected 

from impacts from cumulative scenario activities.

Anticipated impacts to archaeological resources from drilling include discharge of drilling fluids, 

cuttings, and localized accumulation of cement slurry. Based on the limited impacts of these activities to 

benthic communities as discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, it is likely that the impact to archaeological 

resources would also be negligible. Avoidance of archaeological resources and immediate reporting of 

unanticipated discoveries to BOEM are expected to prevent a serious impact to archaeological resources.

Because impacts to archaeological resources associated with drilling discharges from the cumulative 

activities scenario are expected to be negligible, the proposed action would add an extremely small area 

of seafloor disturbance to the cumulative area affected. Therefore, the impacts associated with 

Alternative A would result in a negligible incremental increase in seafloor impacts associated with 

drilling discharges.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-185

Accidental Fuel Spills

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including 

high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing activity would also 

contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and 

subsequent loss of fuel. The impacts of an accidental fuel spill arising from a vessel collision under the 

cumulative scenario are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

The likelihood of a fuel spill during seismic airgun surveys or other G&G activities is considered to 

be remote, and the associated impacts are expected to be negligible (Chapter 4.2.10.3). Given the size of 

the potential spill, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not expected. 

Seafloor-disturbing activities associated with spill cleanup are not expected. Minor incremental impacts 

to archaeological resources from spill response and cleanup activities associated with a fuel spill from 

vessels are expected under the cumulative activities scenario.

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, no impacts to archaeological resources would be expected. Before exploration drilling could 

occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts would be analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared 

for any Exploration Plan (EP) submitted by an operator. Potential impacts from an accidental crude oil 

spill from a well blowout would be examined in the EA prior to any wells drilled. In addition, a 

project-specific EA would require an analysis of site-specific information regarding submerged 

archaeological resources and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts from drilling activities and 

potential accidental crude oil spills. An accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well is not 

anticipated with the required mitigation measures in place and with oversight of these activities by BSEE 

as included in CFR Title 30 Chapter II, part 250; however, a spill could potentially still occur. However, 

with these mitigation measures in place, the impacts to archaeological resources from exploratory drilling 

operations would be negligible. 

4.2.11. Marine Protected Areas

An MPA is defined by EO 13158 as “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by 

Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of 

the natural and cultural resources therein.” (Federal Register, 2000a). A National System of MPAs was 

established in 2009 as a nationwide program for the effective stewardship, conservation, restoration, 

sustainable use, understanding, and appreciation of marine resources. The national system currently 

includes 437 Federal, State, and territorial MPAs covering an area of 494,765 km2

 (191,030 mi2) 

(National Marine Protected Areas Center, 2013). 

Section 5 of EO 13158 specifies that “each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural 

resources that are protected by an MPA shall identify such actions. To the extent permitted by law and to 

the maximum extent practicable, each Federal agency, in taking such actions, shall avoid harm to the 

natural and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA.”

4.2.11.1. Description of the Affected Environment

The MPAs within and adjacent to the AOI are listed in Table 4-37, and their locations are shown in 

Figures 4-33 to 4-35. The following text focuses on MPAs within the AOI (i.e., in nearshore or offshore 

waters), followed by a brief summary of coastal MPAs. 
4-186 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.11.1.1. National Marine Sanctuaries

Two NMSs have been established in the AOI: the Monitor NMS, located off the coast of North 

Carolina, and Gray’s Reef NMS, located off the coast of Georgia (Table 4-37; Figure 4-33). They are 

administered by NOAA’s ONMS.

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary

The Monitor NMS is located 26 km (14 nmi) off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The USS Monitor

was a Civil War ship and the Navy’s first ironclad warship. The Monitor NMS is closed to the public 

with regards to any disturbing activities, with access restricted to scientific research and managing 

officials. The USS Monitor sank off Cape Hatteras during a storm in December 1862, and its location 

was unknown until 1973 when the ship was found 30 km (14 nmi) off Cape Hatteras in 70 m (230 ft) of 

water. In 1975, the Monitor was named the nation’s first NMS (Monitor NMS, 2011). Federal 

regulations (15 CFR § 922.61) prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS, including (but not limited 

to) anchoring, diving (except as authorized), cable laying, coring, dredging, drilling, detonating 

explosives, conducting salvage operations, trawling, or discharging wastes in violation of Federal 

regulations.

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

Gray’s Reef NMS is located 32 km (17 nmi) east of Sapelo Island, Georgia, and encompasses an area 

of 57.4 km2 (22.2 mi2

) (Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, 2011b). It was designated in 1981 as the 

nation’s fourth marine sanctuary to protect the unique hard bottom habitat that supports a variety of 

sessile organisms (e.g., sponges, corals, sea fans, and barnacles). Gray’s Reef NMS has been recognized 

as a unique bioregion by the United Nations. Invertebrates constitute the live hard bottom and support 

reef fishes (e.g., black sea bass, snappers, groupers, and mackerels) as well as the threatened loggerhead 

sea turtle. Gray’s Reef is within the winter calving ground for the endangered NARW, which is 

occasionally seen in the sanctuary. The reef is also a popular dive site and the largest nearshore live 

bottom habitat available to recreational fishermen in the Georgia region. Federal regulations (15 CFR § 

922.92) prohibit certain activities in Gray’s Reef NMS, including (but not limited to) anchoring; 

dredging, drilling, or altering submerged lands; constructing, placing, abandoning any structure, material 

or other matter on submerged lands; discharging or depositing any material; injuring, catching, harvesting 

or collecting marine organisms; using explosives or devices that produce electric charges; and breaking, 

cutting, damaging, taking, or removing any bottom formation or sanctuary historical resource. Further 

information on Gray’s Reef NMS is provided in Chapter 4.2.1.1.2.

4.2.11.1.2. Deepwater Marine Protected Areas

The SAFMC (2011b) defines MPAs within its jurisdiction as a network of specific areas of marine 

environments reserved and managed for the primary purpose of aiding in the recovery of overfished 

stocks and to ensure the persistence of healthy fish stocks, fisheries, and associated habitats. Such areas 

may include naturally occurring or artificial bottom and water column habitats, and may include 

prohibition of harvest on seasonal or permanent time periods to achieve desired fishery conservation and 

management goals.

Eight deepwater MPAs have been established in the South Atlantic region through implementation of 

Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (SAFMC, 2007). Six of these 

deepwater MPAs are within the AOI (Table 4-37; Figure 4-34). The MPAs are designed to protect a 

portion of the long-lived, deepwater snapper-grouper species such as blueline tilefish, snowy grouper, and 

speckled hind. In these deepwater MPAs, fishing for or possession of any snapper-grouper complex 

species (73 species) and shark bottom longline gear are prohibited. Vessels (both commercial and 

recreational) may transit (direct, non-stop progression) through the MPAs with snapper-grouper complex 

species on board with fishing gear appropriately stowed. Trolling for pelagic species such as tunas, 

dolphin, mackerels, and billfishes is allowed within the MPAs. The following paragraphs describe the six 

deepwater MPAs in the AOI, from north to south, based on the SAFMC website (SAFMC, 2011b).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-187

Snowy Grouper Wreck Marine Protected Area

The Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA has an area of 514 km2 (150 nmi2) and is located approximately 

102 km (55 nmi) southeast of Southport, North Carolina (east of Cape Fear). It includes a wreck site that 

may also have smaller wrecks within the area that is known to have once held spawning aggregations of 

snowy grouper, hence the name. Substantial hard bottom habitat is present and has the potential to 

protect a portion of deepwater snapper-grouper species, as well as some mid-shelf species, from directed 

fishing pressure. Bottom fishes known to frequent the area include gag grouper, graysby, hogfish, red 

grouper, red porgy, snowy grouper, and speckled hind. Prior to the MPA designation, the Snowy Grouper 

Wreck site was mostly fished by commercial snapper-grouper fishermen out of Little River, South 

Carolina, and the ports of Carolina Beach and Southport, North Carolina. This area was also heavily 

fished by fishermen who troll for dolphin, marlins, tunas, and wahoo during certain times of the year. 

After discovery of the wreck in 1990’s, the area was quickly fished down.

Northern South Carolina Marine Protected Area

The Northern South Carolina MPA has an area of 171 km2 (50 nmi2) and is approximately 100 km 

(54 nmi) from Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. It contains areas of low relief and hard bottom habitat 

consisting of eroded rock in shelf edge water depths where vermilion snapper are found. Prior to the 

MPA designation, fishing focused on deepwater species like snowy grouper, speckled hind, and 

yellowedge grouper as well as gag grouper, red porgy, and triggerfish. The site has the potential of 

protecting several species of deepwater snappers and groupers, mid-shelf species, and associated habitat.

Edisto Marine Protected Area

Located 83 km (45 nmi) southeast of the Charleston, South Carolina harbor, the 50-nmi2 (171-km2) 

Edisto MPA was heavily fished by both commercial and recreational fishermen prior to the MPA 

designation. Species such as black sea bass, blueline tilefish, gag, scamp, juvenile snowy grouper, red 

porgy, speckled hind, and vermilion snapper reside in this shelf-edge habitat.

Charleston Deep Reef Marine Protected Area

The Charleston Deep Reef MPA is a 6.5 by 11 km (3.5 by 6 nmi) area proposed as an experimental 

artificial reef site located about 93 km (50 nmi) southeast of Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. There is 

no hard bottom in the area. Any biological benefits to deepwater species would accrue after artificial reef 

material (such as sunken ships, tanks, or highway materials) is added to improve habitat and attract fishes. 

Long-term study of this site may provide important biological information about deepwater 

snapper-grouper species and the effectiveness of deepwater artificial reefs.

Georgia Marine Protected Area

The Georgia MPA is located 128 km (69 nmi) southeast of the mouth of Wassaw Sound, Georgia, 

and covers a area of 343 km2 (100 nmi2

). Although most fishing in the area is for pelagic species such as 

tunas and dolphin, species such as snowy grouper and golden tilefish were often caught prior to the MPA 

designation. This area lies east of an area called the “Triple Ledge” that is an important area for 

commercial fishermen and was occasionally fished commercially for snapper-grouper species.

North Florida Marine Protected Area

Located 111 km (60 nmi) off the mouth of the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, Florida, the 343-km2

(100-nmi2

) North Florida MPA has some mud bottom habitat and shelf-edge reef of slab pavement, 

blocked boulders, and buried blocked boulders. Snowy grouper and speckled hind have been caught in 

the area, and the mud bottom may also be habitat for golden tilefish. Some mid-shelf species that that are 

also likely to inhabit the area include vermilion snapper, hogfish, scamp, red porgy, and tomtate.
4-188 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.11.1.3. Other Federal Fishery Management Areas

Numerous other Federal fishery management areas have been designated by NMFS, the SAFMC, or 

the MAFMC (Table 4-37). These areas have restrictions on certain types of fishing activities that, 

although not directly relevant to the proposed action, are important because of the protected resources and 

the types of activities that are prohibited. See Chapter 4.2.7.1.4 for a discussion of commercial fishing

closures and restrictions.

4.2.11.1.4. Coastal Marine Protected Areas

National Park System (National Seashores) 

There are five national seashores along the coast adjacent to the AOI that are administered by the 

National Park Service: Assateague Island National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, Cumberland Island National Seashore, and Canaveral National Seashore 

(Figure 4-33) (National Park Service, 2011).

Cape Hatteras was the first national seashore (1953), and Canaveral is the newest (1975). National 

seashores are coastal areas federally designated as being of natural and recreational significance as a 

preserved area. All national parks are required to have an approved General Management Plan that 

provides a framework to guide decisions for natural and cultural resource protection, appropriate types 

and levels of visitor activities, and appropriate facility development (National Park Service, 2011).

National Estuarine Research Reserves and National Estuary Program 

The National Estuarine Research Reserves System is a partnership between NOAA and the coastal 

states that protects more than 1.3 million coastal and estuarine acres in a network of 28 reserves located in 

22 states and Puerto Rico. The reserves consist of relatively pristine estuarine areas that contain key 

habitat for purposes of long-term research, environmental monitoring, education, and stewardship and are 

protected from significant ecological change or developmental impacts (National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System, 2011).

There are several National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) sites in the Atlantic Coast States, but 

the Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR is the only one that extends into open ocean waters. Located near 

St. Augustine, Florida, it includes 10,117 ha (25,000 ac) of open ocean as well as a range of other habitats 

including mangrove forests, lagoons, and upland habitats (Table 4-37). Several protected bird species 

(e.g., bald eagle, rosette spoonbill, and peregrine falcon) and the Florida manatee are found in the reserve, 

and the offshore waters are considered breeding grounds for the endangered NARW (Frazel, 2009). The 

NERR supports 16 species that are fished or harvested commercially and 18 species that are fished 

recreationally (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2011).

Although not designated as MPAs, four National Estuary Program (NEP) sites occur along the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts (NEP, 2011): Delaware Inland Bays, Maryland Coastal Bays, 

Albermarle-Pamlico Sounds (North Carolina), and Indian River Lagoon (Florida). Also, the Chesapeake 

Bay Program encompasses Chesapeake Bay waters from Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania 

(Chesapeake Bay Program, 2011).

National Wildlife Refuges

Ten NWRs are located along the coast adjacent to the AOI (USDOI, FWS, 2011f). They are 

Chincoteague NWR (Maryland/Virginia), Fisherman Island NWR (Virginia), Back Bay NWR (Virginia), 

Currituck NWR (North Carolina), Pea Island NWR (North Carolina), Cape Romain NWR (South 

Carolina), Blackbeard Island NWR (Georgia), Wassaw NWR (Georgia), portions of the Archie Carr 

NWR (Florida), and Merritt Island NWR (Florida) (Figure 4-33). All land within the NWR system is 

managed toward the goal of conserving and restoring the nation’s fish and wildlife habitat. Management 

approaches and conservation methods differ among NWRs but typically include managing and 

rehabilitating wildlife habitat, controlling invasive species, and assisting in the recovery of rare wildlife 

species (USDOI, FWS, 2011g).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-189

State Designated Marine Protected Areas

There are numerous State-designated MPAs representing state parks, resource conservation areas, 

(e.g., nature preserves, aquatic preserves, natural areas, wildlife management area), sanctuaries, water 

quality protection areas, and historical areas located along the coast adjacent to the AOI (Figure 4-35). In 

addition, there are also areas where fishery activities are prohibited or controlled in State-designated 

MPAs (Table 4-37). Except for sanctuaries and historical areas (shipwrecks) that are located seaward of 

the shoreline, most of the State-designated MPAs are on land.

4.2.11.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses the potential impacts of routine activities associated with Alternative A on 

MPAs. Preliminary screening of potential impacts or IPFs relative to resources is summarized in 

Chapter 4.1.1. As outlined in Table 4-2, IPFs for MPAs include (1) active acoustic sound sources (e.g., 

airguns; electromechanical sources including subbottom profilers, depth sounders, and side-scan sonar), 

(2) trash and debris, (3) seafloor disturbance, and (4) drilling discharges. 

4.2.11.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to MPAs would include those where little to no measurable impacts are observed 

or expected. Negligible impacts to MPAs would include those where G&G activities would produce little 

to no damage to natural communities, would not reduce the multiple resource uses within MPAs, and 

would not alter the physical, chemical, or biological environment within MPAs.

Minor impacts to MPAs would include those that are detectable but are neither severe nor extensive. 

Minor impacts to MPAs would include impacts arising from any activity that results in low levels of 

damage to the ecological function or reduction in the biological productivity of natural communities or 

multiple resource uses within MPAs.

Moderate impacts to MPAs would be detectable and extensive within the MPA, but not severe or 

localized within the MPA and severe. Moderate impacts to MPAs would include impacts arising from 

any activity that results in moderate damage to the ecological function or reduction in the biological 

productivity of natural communities or multiple resource uses within MPAs.

Major impacts to MPAs would be detectable, extensive within the MPA, and severe. Major impacts 

to MPAs would include any G&G activity that results in any destruction of, or damage to, key biological 

resources in MPAs; or severe, extensive damage to the ecological function or reduction in the biological 

productivity of natural communities or multiple resource uses within MPAs. 

4.2.11.2.2. Evaluation

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airgun noise frequency output ranges from 10 to 200 Hz, with sound source (pressure) levels from 

225 to 260 dB re 1 μPa. Airgun sounds are also pulsed and have a rapid rise time. Electromechanical 

sources typically are mid- or high-frequency narrow-band sources having highly directed very narrow 

beam widths. Broadband source levels range from 212 to 226 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Table 3-11). Because 

seismic airgun surveys are expected to cover the entire AOI, all marine (offshore) MPAs could be 

exposed to noise produced by seismic survey activity.

The G&G activity under the oil and gas program would account for most of the airgun and 

electromechanical sources and have the largest potential for affecting MPAs. Additionally, because of the 

nature of renewable energy and marine mining projects (i.e., their limited spatial distribution), activities 

associated with the oil and gas program have a greater potential to affect MPAs through noise. For 

example, G&G activities such as 2D seismic airgun surveys account for the majority of the activities 

under Alternative A, with nearly double the 2D survey line length projected in the Mid-Atlantic Planning 

Area (396,400 km; 246,312 mi) compared with the South Atlantic Planning Area (221,374 km; 

137,555 mi), where most of the offshore MPAs are located. In contrast, HRG surveys have slightly 

greater projected activity in the South Atlantic (91,770 km; 57,023 mi) relative to the Mid-Atlantic 

(83,695 km; 52,006 mi), while projected VSP activity in the South Atlantic is double (800 km; 497 mi) 

that of the Mid-Atlantic (400 km; 248 mi). The projected levels of 3D and WAZ survey activity are 
4-190 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

similar in both planning areas. However, it is not clear how close these various G&G activities may come 

to MPAs.

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Gray’s Reef NMS offshore Georgia and the Monitor NMS offshore Cape Hatteras are located within 

areas planned for 2D seismic airgun surveys with moderate to high survey line density. While seismic 

airgun surveys employing airguns and hydrophone streamers are not likely precluded from conducting 

surveys over deepwater MPAs, these activities may not be allowed over an NMS located in shallow 

waters. All authorizations for seismic airgun surveys (those involving airguns as an acoustic source) 

would include a survey protocol that specifies underwater noise mitigation measures for protected 

species, including an acoustic exclusion zone, ramp-up requirements, visual monitoring by PSOs, and 

array shutdown requirements as outlined in Chapter 2.1.3.1. While an NMS may be avoided so no 

airguns and streamers directly transit within its bounds, noise from 2D seismic and other types of surveys 

may still reach receptors within an NMS at a distance. Non-airgun HRG surveys are expected to use 

electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; boomer, sparker, and chirp subbottom profilers; and 

single beam or multibeam depth sounders. Some AUVs can use combinations of sources for HRG data 

collection. All authorizations for non-airgun HRG surveys would include specific protocol requirements 

as outlined in Chapter 2.1.3.2. As discussed in Chapter 1.7.5, ONMS and BOEM will initiate 

discussions about specific stipulations that would identify when sanctuary consultation would be required. 

The NMSA and the ONMS regulations have a broad definition of the terms “sanctuary resource” and 

“injury”; “injury” includes behavioral disturbance.

Depending on the distance from seismic survey project areas to an NMS and sensitive species and 

habitats contained therein, noise-generating activities from G&G surveys could potentially affect benthic 

communities (Chapter 4.2.1.2), marine mammals (Chapter 4.2.2.2), sea turtles (Chapter 4.2.3.2), 

marine and coastal birds (Chapter 4.2.4.2), and fisheries resources and EFH (Chapter 4.2.5.2), any of 

which may be present within an NMS. Cultural or archaeological resources would also be present; 

however, no impacts to these resources from noise sources are expected (Chapter 4.2.10.2). Recreational 

resources within an NMS may also be affected by seismic noise (Chapter 4.2.9.2). Seismic airgun

surveys conducted at the border of an NMS may generate noise that would be projected into NMS waters. 

Although a buffer zone or exclusion area around an NMS would reduce noise levels within a sanctuary, it 

may not be warranted as outlined in the following resource-specific summaries.

Benthic Communities: Impacts to benthic organisms from noise generated from G&G surveys are 

not likely to occur except in the unlikely event of airgun use at very close range (e.g., in very shallow 

water), where sufficient acoustic energy reaches the seafloor to cause physiological damage. At the 

depths where each NMS occurs, only limited impacts to benthic communities from G&G survey noise are 

expected. Based on study results of invertebrate communities following airgun exposure, detectable 

impacts on hard/live bottom, coral, or chemosynthetic communities are not expected from active acoustic

sound sources. Further, only limited, localized impacts to soft bottom benthic organisms are expected, 

and no overall changes in species composition, community structure, and/or ecological functioning of soft 

bottom communities is expected. Impacts to benthic communities, including those found within each 

NMS of the AOI, from active acoustic sound sources would be negligible. 

Marine Mammals: Marine mammals would be affected by seismic survey, non-airgun HRG survey, 

and other sources of noise as discussed in Chapter 4.2.2.2.2. While no mortality or physical injury is 

expected from noise exposure, behavioral impacts may occur. Calculated radial distances to threshold 

level for behavioral impacts are dependent upon the size and orientation of the airgun array and physical 

characteristics of the marine environment and sediments (e.g., water column stratification, water depth, 

and nature of the seafloor). Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol include the use of ramp-up in conjunction 

with clearance of an acoustic exclusion zone, visual (and possibly passive acoustic) monitoring, and 

shutdown procedures if marine mammals are detected within the safety zone. Established HRG Survey 

Protocol that specifies mitigation measures for marine mammals are detailed in Chapter 2.1.3.2. These 

include the establishment of a 200-m (656-ft) acoustic exclusion zone for non-airgun HRG surveys 

operating at and below 200 kHz, visual monitoring of this acoustic exclusion zone by PSOs, and sound 

source shutdown requirements. With these mitigation measures in place, it is not expected that the 

impacts of noise from the proposed action would adversely affect either listed or protected marine 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-191

mammal species that may be present in an NMS. Impacts from noise associated with active acoustic

sound sources are expected to be moderate for seismic airguns and minor for electromechanical sources.

Sea Turtles: Sea turtles have exhibited avoidance behavior from seismic noise exposure at received 

levels of 166-179 dB re 1 μPa (Moein et al., 1995; McCauley et al., 2000a). The potential range of 

behavioral effects would be similar to that anticipated for marine mammals as discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.3.2.2. The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol previously outlined within the context of marine 

mammal mitigation is also applicable to sea turtles. With these mitigation measures in place, it is not 

expected that the impacts of noise from the proposed action would adversely affect any listed sea turtles. 

Impacts of seismic noise on sea turtles may result in individual short-term behavioral reactions if they are 

present in proximity to the airgun array; this impact is expected to range from negligible to minor within 

NMSs. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2, acoustic signals from electromechanical sources other than 

the boomer and sparker are not likely to be detectable by sea turtles. Survey protocols established for 

non-airgun HRG sound sources operating at and below 200 kHz include the establishment of a 

200-m-radius acoustic exclusion zone around the sound source, monitoring protocols by trained PSOs, 

and start-up and shutdown protocols, as discussed in Chapter 2.1.3.2. Based on the source levels of most 

boomer and sparker equipment, and the HRG Survey Protocol, impacts from HRG surveys using boomer 

or sparker subbottom profilers on sea turtles are expected to range from negligible to minor, based on the 

distance of the individual sea turtle from the sound pulse.

Marine and Coastal Birds: With only a few exceptions, marine and coastal birds would not be 

impacted within NMSs since they are benthic sites located in deep water. Therefore, impacts to marine 

and coastal birds, including those few species that may use the NMSs of the AOI, from active acoustic

sound sources would be negligible. 

Fisheries and EFH: The effects of active acoustic sound sources (e.g., airgun noise) on fishes

include behavioral responses, masking of biologically important sounds, temporal threshold shifts 

(hearing loss), physiological effects, and mortality. Seismic survey (airgun) noise has the potential to 

disrupt normal activities of sensitive species and, in rare instances, inflict physiological damage. Direct 

effects may include pathological (i.e., injury), physiological (e.g., stress), and behavioral changes. Given 

sufficient exposure within an NMS, affected fish species would either vacate the area, experience shortterm threshold shift (hearing loss), experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or be completely 

unaffected. The mobile nature of the seismic airgun surveys as well as the temporary surveying of small 

areas of the seafloor relative to the overall area, and the propensity of fishes to move away from noise that 

is affecting them, suggest that the impacts would be minor. 

Archaeological Resources: The Monitor NMS is closed to the public with regards to any disturbing 

activities, with access restricted to scientific research and managing officials. Federal regulations 

(15 CFR part 922) prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS, including anchoring, diving (except as 

authorized), cable laying, coring, dredging, drilling, detonating explosives, conducting salvage operations, 

trawling, or discharging wastes in violation of Federal regulations. With these access restrictions in place 

for the Monitor NMS, there would be no direct impacts from active acoustic sources to the Monitor NMS.

Recreational Resources: In an NMS that may allow multiple uses such as recreational fishing or 

diving, such activities would not be affected by noise from G&G activities except for potential impacts to 

target recreational fish species in close proximity to noise sources that could result in a localized, 

temporary displacement and/or disruption of feeding. However, these potential impacts to target 

recreational fish species is unlikely to occur because recreational fishing activities and water sports such 

as diving are likely to be precluded from the survey area in advance of a seismic survey for safety 

purposes since operators would be expected to provide information to the USCG regarding survey 

activities and location to issue a Notice to Mariners (Chapter 3.5.1.5), and if marker buoys need to be 

removed, they would be expected to coordinate with the NMS manager (Chapter 2.1.2.4). In addition, as 

discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.4, sound-producing activities (such as seismic surveys) proposed in or near 

the boundaries of an NMS would be assigned a setback distance as a condition of BOEM permit approval. 

Setback distances will be determined prior to any sound-producing surveys by BOEM and in consultation 

with the Sanctuary Superintendent pursuant to Section 304(d) of the NMSA. The transient noise from 

survey vessels conducting seismic airgun surveys with streamers would have negligible impacts to 

recreational fishing and diving in Gray’s Reef NMS, where fishing and diving is allowed. The Monitor 

NMS is closed to the public with regards to any disturbing activities, with access restricted to scientific 

research and managing officials.
4-192 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

In summary, the extent of impacts to sensitive receptors in NMSs would depend largely on their 

distance from the noise sources associated with G&G surveys. Overall, such impacts from transient 

activities would be expected to be negligible in terms of potential impacts on sensitive populations within 

each NMS. Seismic survey airgun and electromechanical source noise intruding into an NMS would 

likely have no more than temporary effects on those protected resources that are characteristic of each 

NMS. Negligible impacts are expected for most NMS resources, including benthic communities, marine 

and coastal birds, and recreational resources, while minor impacts are expected for fisheries resources 

and EFH. Impacts to marine mammals would range from negligible to moderate and from negligible to 

minor for sea turtles. Impacts to each NMS from G&G sound sources, including airguns and 

electromechanical sources, are expected to range between negligible and minor. 

Deepwater Marine Protected Areas

Six federally designated offshore/deepwater MPAs located south of Cape Hatteras are within the 

planned 2D seismic survey areas. Four deepwater MPAs are located in areas with the highest survey 

densities: Georgia, Edisto, Charleston Deep Artificial Reef, and Northern South Carolina MPAs. Fishes 

in the Federal fishery management areas along with sea turtles and marine mammals that may be present 

potentially may be affected by noise from G&G activities. The extent of impacts from noise emanating 

from seismic activities on fishes in these MPAs would depend largely on their distance from the noise 

sources associated with G&G surveys. As seismic airgun surveys are not precluded from deepwater 

MPAs, airgun and electromechanical noise may affect fishes within deepwater MPAs. Noise generated 

from G&G activities is expected to produce minor impacts on fishes in deepwater MPAs if surveys are 

conducted within the bounds of each MPA. While fishes are the primary resources for which these 

deepwater MPAs were established, other resources such as benthic organisms, marine birds, and marine 

mammals are also present; these are unlikely to be significantly affected by airgun and electromechanical 

noise from survey activities, as discussed previously (i.e., impacts to each NMS are expected to range 

between negligible and minor, depending upon the resource of concern).

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

Coastal/State-designated MPAs are located mostly outside or inshore of areas planned for 2D seismic

airgun surveys and would not be impacted, although there are some whose seaward boundaries may fall 

within the planned 2D seismic survey areas. The boundaries of the Assateague Island and Cape 

Canaveral National Seashores and the Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERRs overlap with the AOI. 

State-designated MPAs that overlap with the AOI include the Blue Crab Sanctuary at the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, the North Carolina Crab Spawning Sanctuaries, the North Carolina Sea 

Turtle Sanctuaries, the Queen Anne’s Revenge site, the Ft. Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve, the Nassau 

River-St. Johns River Aquatic Preserve, the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, and the Cape 

Canaveral National Seashore Outstanding Florida Water. Noise from G&G surveys also could potentially 

affect fishes (Chapter 4.2.5.2), marine mammals (Chapter 4.2.2.2), and sea turtles (Chapter 4.2.3.2) in 

these coastal MPAs. The extent of impacts to fishes and marine mammals in MPAs would depend 

largely on their distance from the noise sources associated with G&G surveys. Impacts to sea turtles in 

coastal MPAs are expected to range from negligible to moderate, depending on the timing and location 

of the survey. Heavily used nesting beaches within some coastal MPAs are located in the southern 

portion of the AOI (e.g., Archie Carr NWR, Merritt Island NWR). The northern segment of the Archie 

Carr NWR borders the AOI, and it has been estimated that 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the 

U.S. occurs there (USDOI, FWS, 2011a). During the 2010 nesting season, there were over 

31,000 loggerhead nests in Brevard County, where the Archie Carr NWR is located. It is likely that large 

numbers of sea turtles would be present in nearshore and inner shelf waters of Brevard County during the 

nesting season from May 1 through October 31. Seismic airgun surveys performed in these inner shelf 

waters during nesting season could temporarily displace breeding and nesting adult turtles and potentially 

disrupt time-critical activities and result in moderate impacts. Therefore, depending on the location of 

the surveys and the time of year, impacts to sea turtles could be negligible to moderate. Impacts to 

benthic organisms, primarily invertebrates, in these coastal MPAs from noise generated from G&G 

surveys are expected to be negligible, except in the unlikely event of use of airguns in very shallow water. 

Overall, such impacts would be expected to range between negligible and minor at the population level. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-193

Noise emanating from G&G survey activities is unlikely to affect biological, cultural, or archaeological 

resources contained in coastal/State-designated MPAs (e.g., shipwrecks such as the Queen Anne’s 

Revenge and in artificial reefs). 

Trash and Debris

Most trash generated offshore during G&G activities is mainly associated with galley and offshore 

food service operations. Although companies operating offshore have developed and implemented trash 

and debris reduction and improved handling practices in recent years to reduce the amount of offshore 

trash that could potentially be lost into the marine environment, trash and debris would be generated 

during G&G activities that could be accidentally lost overboard. A discussion of the effects of debris lost 

overboard from offshore drilling operations is provided in Chapter 4.2.1.2. The available information 

indicates that debris from exploratory drilling results in minimal (i.e., negligible) impact to the benthic 

environment. Debris deposited in areas of extensive soft bottom provided artificial hard substrate that 

resulted in epifaunal colonization and attracted fishes. 

As guidance similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012) would be required for all survey vessels performing work within 

U.S. jurisdictional waters (i.e., they are required to comply with Federal regulations including MARPOL 

73/78 and all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris awareness), 

only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated. Impacts from trash and debris as generated by 

survey vessels, sampling, shallow or COST well drilling, and other G&G-related activities on MPAs and 

the resources within would be negligible. 

Seafloor Disturbance

G&G sampling, drilling, and anchor placement may disturb the seafloor. Activities with the potential 

for seafloor disturbance include sampling by vibracoring, geologic core, and grab; use of jet probes and 

piezonecone penetrometers; the laying of ocean bottom nodal, ocean bottom cable, and vertical cable; the 

drilling of shallow test and COST wells; and the placement and retrieval of bottom-founded monitoring 

buoys. Proposed activities under Alternative A include bottom sampling, drilling, and anchoring. 

Bottom sampling would be conducted in all three program areas. Total area disturbed by core or grab 

sampling is expected to affect 11 ha (27.7 ac), which represents 0.00001 percent of the AOI. Seafloor 

disturbance from the drilling of COST wells and shallow test wells would average about 2 ha (5 ac) per 

well. If all of the COST wells and shallow test wells in the proposed action scenario were drilled, the 

total seafloor disturbance would be about 16 ha (40 ac), or about 0.00002 percent of the AOI. Anchoring 

would include installation of 7-38 bottom-founded monitoring buoys as part of the renewable energy

program. Similarly, the placement and removal of bottom cables and anchors would produce localized 

sediment disturbance to soft bottom communities. Total footprint area would range from 3.85 to 20.9 m2

(42 to 228 ft2

) for the anchors, while the sweep area would range from 23.8 to 129.2 ha (59.5 to 323 ac). 

If all of the monitoring buoys in the proposed action scenario were installed, the total seafloor disturbance 

would be about 129 ha (319 ac), or about 0.0002 percent of the AOI and 0.047 percent of the identified 

wind energy areas (WEAs). 

BOEM would require site-specific information regarding potential sensitive benthic communities

prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of 

bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM has not designated specific benthic locations 

for avoidance in the AOI. However, deepwater MPAs, Gray’s Reef NMS, and other known hard/live 

bottom areas, deepwater coral areas, and chemosynthetic community sites are likely areas for avoidance. 

All authorizations for G&G surveys proposed within or near these areas would be subject to review to 

facilitate avoidance (Chapter 2.1.2.4). BOEM would use this information to ensure that physical impacts 

to sensitive benthic communities are avoided. Therefore, seafloor-disturbing impacts to sensitive benthic 

communities within MPAs are expected to be avoided (i.e., negligible). 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Federal regulations (15 CFR § 922.92) prohibit certain activities in the Gray’s Reef NMS, including 

(but not limited to) anchoring; dredging; drilling; using explosives; breaking, damaging, or removing any 
4-194 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

bottom formation; constructing structures; constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure, material, or 

other matter on the submerged lands of the Sanctuary; and discharging or depositing any material or other 

matter except fish or fish parts, bait, or chumming materials, effluent from MSDs, and vessel cooling 

water. Additionally, under a new regulation that went into effect December 4, 2011, the southern third of 

the NMS is now a research area where fishing and diving are prohibited, but vessels are allowed to travel 

across the area as long as they do not stop (Federal Register, 2011b; USDOC, ONMS, 2011). In 

addition, Federal regulations (15 CFR § 922.61) prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS, including 

(but not limited to) anchoring, stopping, remaining, or drifting without power at any time; any type of 

subsurface salvage or recovery operation; diving of any type, whether by an individual or by a 

submersible; lowering below the surface of the water any grappling, suction, conveyor, dredging or 

wrecking device; detonating below the surface of the water any explosive or explosive mechanism; 

drilling or coring the seabed; lowering, laying, positioning or raising any type of seabed cable or 

cable-laying device; trawling; or discharging waste material into the water. Bottom-disturbing activities 

proposed within the boundaries of an NMS would not be permitted by BOEM, whereas bottom-disturbing 

activities proposed near the boundaries of an NMS would be assigned a setback distance (to be 

determined prior to any sound-producing survey activity by BOEM and in consultation with the 

Sanctuary Superintendent as a condition of permit approval). Given these restrictions, no 

seafloor-disturbing G&G activities including placement of materials would occur within NMS waters 

without ONMS approval. No direct impacts to benthic communities or archaeological/cultural resources

in either NMS are expected from G&G activities.

Under the renewable energy program, BOEM has issued Guidelines for Providing Geological and 

Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 285 (USDOI, BOEM, 

2012b). The guidelines specify that a site characterization survey must reliably cover all portions of the 

site that would be affected by seafloor-disturbing activities. The guidelines recommend avoidance as a 

primary mitigation strategy for objects of historical or archaeological significance. The applicant has the 

option to demonstrate through additional investigations that an archaeological resource either does not 

exist or would not be adversely affected by the seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities. While site 

characterization activities covered by these guidelines could identify other resource types such as benthic 

communities, recommendations for conducting and reporting the results of other baseline collection 

studies (e.g., biological) would be provided by BOEM in separate guidelines. Impacts to NMSs from 

G&G-based seafloor disturbance would be negligible. 

Deepwater Marine Protected Areas

G&G activities that result in seafloor disturbance can potentially affect deepwater MPAs. However, 

as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require site-specific information regarding potential 

sensitive benthic communities and archeological resources prior to approving any G&G activities 

involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the 

AOI. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.3, setbacks from sensitive bottom communities and 

archaeological resources similar to those currently required for the Gulf of Mexico would be applied to

activities within the AOI. Impacts would be minimized with implementation of these requirements for 

site characterization for G&G activities from BOEM. Overall, impacts from seafloor disturbance would 

be expected to be negligible for potential impacts on submerged archaeological resources, benthic 

communities, fisheries resources and EFH, sea turtles, and marine mammals from such 

seafloor-disturbing G&G activities in deepwater MPAs.

Other Federal Fishery Management Areas

If G&G activities that result in seafloor disturbance are not precluded in other federally designated 

fishery management areas (Table 4-37) where there are restrictions on certain types of fishing activities, 

such G&G activities would potentially affect resources in these fishery management areas. Seafloor 

disturbance from G&G activities could result in temporary and negligible impacts from sediment 

resuspension that could result in turbidity and suspension/mobilization of sediment trace metals and 

organics. Benthic communities also may be subject to direct physical impacts resulting in displacement, 

injury, or mortality within very limited areas of the seafloor. Seafloor disturbance could affect 

archaeological/cultural resources such as shipwrecks. However, as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-195

would require site-specific information regarding potential sensitive benthic communities and 

archeological resources prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or 

placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. With implementation of guidelines for 

site characterization for G&G activities from BOEM, impacts from seafloor disturbance would be 

minimized. Overall, impacts from seafloor disturbance would be expected to be negligible for potential 

impacts on submerged archaeological resources, benthic communities, fisheries resources and EFH, sea 

turtles, and marine mammals. 

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

For most coastal MPAs (e.g., National Seashores, the NEP and NERR areas, and coastal NWRs) 

located inshore of the AOI, the resources located therein would not be subject to impact from sea-bottom 

disturbance. Some National Seashores, NERRS sites, and State designated MPAs extend into shallow 

marine waters that overlap with the AOI where they could be directly or indirectly be affected by G&G

activities. The boundaries of the Assateague Island and Cape Canaveral National Seashores and the 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERRs overlap with the AOI. State-designated MPAs that overlap with the 

AOI include the Blue Crab Sanctuary at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, the North Carolina 

Crab Spawning Sanctuaries, the North Carolina Sea Turtle Sanctuaries, the Queen Anne’s Revenge site, 

the Ft. Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve, the Nassau River-St. Johns River Aquatic Preserve, the Guana 

River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, and the Cape Canaveral National Seashore (designated as an Outstanding 

Florida Water). However, as discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require site-specific 

information regarding potential sensitive benthic communities and archaeological resources prior to 

approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI. Seafloor disturbance from G&G survey activities is unlikely to be 

allowed in coastal MPAs; and therefore, seafloor disturbances are not likely to affect these coastal MPAs.

Drilling Discharges

Drilling discharges may occur during drilling of COST wells or shallow test wells; however, as 

discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require site-specific information prior to approving any 

G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, including drilling, in the AOI. In addition, an 

NPDES permit would be required from the USEPA prior to any drilling activities. The installation of 

COST wells or shallow test wells associated with G&G survey activities is unlikely to be allowed in 

MPAs. An extensive discussion of impacts of drilling discharges from oil and gas operations is provided 

in Chapter 4.2.1.2. During the drilling process, drilling fluid and cuttings potentially discharged would 

accumulate on the seafloor, causing changes in sediment grain size, and would affect the benthic 

community by burial and smothering, anoxia, and sediment toxicity. Excess cement slurry released at the 

seafloor during casing installation would also cause burial and smothering of benthic organisms around 

the wellbore. Soft bottom sediments disturbed by cuttings, drilling fluids, and cement slurry would 

eventually be recolonized through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas. The areal extent 

of impacts from drilling discharges during the proposed action would be small; a typical effect radius of 

500 m (1,640 ft) would be expected.

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Federal regulations (15 CFR part 922) prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS, including 

drilling and discharging wastes in violation of Federal regulations. Federal regulations also prohibit 

discharging wastes other than effluent from MSDs, vessel cooling water, and fish parts within the Gray’s 

Reef NMS (15 CFR § 922.92). Bottom-disturbing activities proposed within the boundaries of an NMS 

would not be permitted, whereas bottom-disturbing activities proposed near the boundaries of an NMS 

would be assigned a setback distance (to be determined at the time the action is before BOEM and in 

consultation with the Sanctuary Manager) as a condition of permit approval. Given these restrictions, no 

discharges of drilling fludis and cuttings would occur within NMS waters, and no impacts in either NMS 

are expected from drilling discharges.
4-196 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Deepwater Marine Protected Areas

As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require site-specific information prior to approving 

any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, including drilling, in the AOI. In addition, an 

NPDES permit would be required from the USEPA prior to any drilling activities. The installation of 

COST wells or shallow test wells associated with G&G survey activities is unlikely to be allowed in 

deepwater MPAs. Therefore, no impacts from drilling discharges would be expected on benthic 

communities, submerged archaeological resources, fisheries resources and EFH, sea turtles, and marine 

mammals are expected from drilling discharges in deepwater MPAs.

Other Federal Fishery Management Areas

If drilling is not precluded in other federally designated fishery management areas where there are 

restrictions on certain types of fishing activities, drilling discharges would potentially affect resources in 

these fishery management areas. Because of the small footprint relative to the total area of fishery 

management areas, impacts from drilling discharges would be expected to be negligible in terms of 

potential impacts on benthic communities, while no impacts to submerged archaeological resources, 

fisheries resources and EFH, sea turtles, and marine mammals are expected from drilling discharges in 

these fishery management areas.

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require site-specific information prior to approving 

any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities, including drilling, in the AOI. In addition, an 

NPDES permit would be required from the USEPA prior to any drilling activities. The installation of 

COST wells or shallow test wells associated with G&G survey activities is unlikely to be allowed in 

MPAs. Therefore, drilling discharges would not affect coastal MPAs.

4.2.11.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event such as a ship collision could result in release of diesel fuel. Such spills are not 

expected to be extensive, would dissipate rapidly, and would likely affect only organisms in the 

immediate location of the accident. Based on USCG spill statistics, a spill scenario was developed in 

Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill ranging from 1.2 to 7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean 

surface would disperse and weather. Volatile components of the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel 

used for operation of survey vessels are light and would float on the surface of the water.

The likelihood of a fuel spill during seismic airgun surveys or other G&G activities in proximity to 

MPAs is expected to be remote. The potential for impacts from a diesel fuel spill would depend greatly 

on the size and location of a spill, the meteorological conditions at the time, and the speed with which 

cleanup plans and equipment could be employed. Such small spills are unlikely to significantly affect 

biota, habitats, and submerged cultural resources within each NMS, other Federal fishery management 

areas (deepwater MPAs), and coastal MPAs. Adult fishes within an MPA would be less susceptible to 

the effects of spilled fuel or oil than would eggs and larvae. Limited spills of fuel are unlikely to affect 

benthic communities, sea turtles, and marine mammals in MPAs. Marine and coastal birds could possibly 

contact spilled fuel, which could cause injury or mortality. However, while individual birds may be oiled 

during a diesel spill, such impacts would be unlikely to affect marine and coastal birds at a population 

level. However, the threatened and endangered bird species (piping plover, roseate tern, and Bermuda 

petrel) are very susceptible to oiling; therefore impacts are expected to range between negligible and 

moderate. In terms of all biological, recreational, and archaeological resources potentially affected, 

accidents involving G&G survey vessels and resulting in a fuel spill would range between negligible and 

moderate. 

4.2.11.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-197

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to affect 

MPAs include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater noise from sonars, 

explosives, and other active sound sources; (2) seafloor disturbance; (3) trash and debris; (4) drilling 

discharges; and (5) a risk of a crude oil spill from a well blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other 

hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic 

events). 

Under Alternative A, IPFs identified for MPAs included (1) active acoustic sound sources; (2) trash

and debris; (3) seafloor disturbance; (4) drilling discharges; and (5) accidental fuel spills. Impact analyses 

presented in Chapters 4.2.11.2 and 4.2.11.3 determined that activities projected to occur under 

Alternative A would result in negligible or minor impacts for most of the resources that constitute MPAs, 

including benthic communities, marine mammals, marine and coastal birds, fisheries and EFH, and 

recreational resources. One resource, sea turtles, had the potential for negligible to moderate impacts, 

depending upon the IPF. The following analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when 

added to or acting synergistically with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may 

result in a significant impact.

Underwater Noise Including Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment 

Noise

Under the cumulative activities scenario, active acoustic sound sources that could adversely affect 

MPAs would be from military activities and G&G survey activities (i.e., sonars, explosives, active sound 

sources including airguns and electromagnetic sources, and vessel traffic and equipment noise) that could 

occur throughout the military operational areas and other areas within the AOI in the vicinity of MPAs. 

For the purposes of this analysis and in consideration of the documented increases in marine 

transportation volumes along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, it is assumed that underwater noise from vessel 

traffic and other anthropogenic sources within the AOI is increasing. Most ambient noise is broadband 

and encompasses virtually the entire frequency spectrum, with vessel traffic recognized as a major 

contributor to ocean noise in the low frequency bands between 5 and 500 Hz. Naturally occurring noise 

(e.g., spray and bubbles from breaking waves) is also a major contributor to ambient noise in the 

500-100,000-Hz range.

Noise from G&G operations would be survey- or activity-based and would occur on a transient and 

intermittent basis over the period of interest and throughout the AOI. The G&G activity, especially the 

use of active acoustic sources such as airguns, under the oil and gas program would account for most of 

the active acoustic noise and have the largest potential for affecting MPAs. Impacts to MPAs from 

underwater noise produced from sound sources associated with proposed G&G activities range from 

negligible to minor for most of the IPFs, with one exception. Moderate impacts were identified for 

active acoustic sound sources (seismic airgun surveys) operating off of heavily used nesting beaches 

during the nesting season (i.e., beaches of southeast Florida), with subsequent temporary displacement of 

breeding and nesting adult turtles and potential disruption of time-critical activities. 

National Marine Sanctuaries, Deepwater Marine Protected Areas, and Other Federal 

Fishery Management Areas

As with the proposed alternative G&G survey activities, the impacts from active acoustic noise to 

NMSs, deepwater MPAs, and other Federal fisheries management areas from the cumulative scenario 

would depend on the distance between the activities and the MPAs. As stated above, active acoustic

sources that could adversely affect NMSs, deepwater MPAs, and other Federal fisheries management 

areas under the cumulative scenario would be from military activities and G&G survey activities 

(i.e., sonars, explosives, other active sound sources including airguns and electromechanical sources, and 

vessel and equipment noise). Gray’s Reef NMS offshore Georgia, the Monitor NMS offshore Cape 

Hatteras, six federally designated offshore/deepwater MPAs located south of Cape Hatteras, and several 

federally designated fishery management areas are located within military operating areas and could be 
4-198 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

exposed to active acoustic noise from either direct use of sonar or from noise propagation through the 

water that has the potential to impact resources within the MPA. These same MPAs could be exposed to 

active acoustic noise from G&G activities describe in Alternative A. All other MPAs that are located 

along the shore, mostly outside or inshore of military range complexes and civilian space program use

areas, would be less likely to be impacted by military activities; however, during ingress and egress from 

the military areas, vessels may pass by these MPAs. Those same MPAs that are located along the shore 

could be impacted by G&G survey activities used in support of all BOEM program areas described in 

Alternative A. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, there are six primary resources that could be impacted 

by active acoustic noise: benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, marine and coastal birds, 

fisheries and EFH, and recreational resources. However, with the use of available mitigation measures 

(e.g., observation and clearance of safety zones), impacts from active acoustic sources associated with 

specific military activities (e.g., sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources) under the cumulative 

activities scenario are expected to fall predominantly within the negligible impacts category; localized, 

short-term minor noise impacts might be realized for all resources. Similarly, the impacts from active 

acoustic sources associated with G&G survey activities are expected to fall within negligible to minor

impacts category, with one exception being moderate impacts off of heavily utilized nesting beaches 

during the nesting season. G&G survey impacts are expected to be localized and short-term. Therefore, 

because only negligible to minor noise impacts are expected from the cumulative activities scenario, and 

there is no evidence to suggest that noise from G&G activities would push ambient noise levels above a 

threshold level where resources within these MPAs might be significantly affected, the impacts associated 

with the proposed action would result in a minor incremental increase in noise-related impacts to MPAs 

under the cumulative scenario.

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

As with the proposed alternative G&G survey activities, the impacts from active acoustic noise to the 

coastal MPAs from the cumulative scenario would depend on how close these various activities may 

come to them. As stated above, the only source of active acoustic noise from the cumulative scenario is 

from military activities (i.e., sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources). Coastal/State-designated 

MPAs are located inshore of military range complexes and civilian space program use areas; however, 

during ingress and egress from the military range complexes and civilian space program use areas, vessels 

may pass by coastal MPAs. Therefore, the impacts from active acoustic sources associated with specific 

military activities (e.g., those involving use of sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources) under 

the cumulative activities scenario are predicted to fall predominantly within the negligible impacts 

category. The impacts from the proposed action are expected to result in negligible to moderate impacts 

to coastal MPAs; impacts associated with the proposed action would result in an incremental increase in 

ambient noise levels under the cumulative scenario.

Trash and Debris

The accidental release of trash and debris can potentially occur from any of the 10 activities identified 

in the cumulative impacts scenario. Vessel operators would be required to comply with Federal laws and 

regulations that implement the requirements of MARPOL 73/78, including Annex V. Most trash 

generated offshore during G&G activities is mainly associated with galley and offshore food service 

operations. Although companies operating offshore have developed and implemented trash and debris 

reduction and improved handling practices in recent years to reduce the amount of offshore trash that 

could potentially be lost into the marine environment, trash and debris would be generated during G&G 

activities that could be accidentally lost overboard. A discussion of the effects of debris lost overboard 

from offshore drilling operations is provided in Chapter 4.2.1.2. 

As guidance similar to BSEE’s NTL 2012-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination”) (USDOI, BSEE, 2012) would be required for all survey vessels performing work within 

U.S. jurisdictional waters (i.e., they are required to comply with Federal regulations including 

MARPOL 73/78 and all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include guidance for marine debris

awareness), only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated. Impacts from trash and debris on 

MPAs and their resources arising from G&G-related activities would be negligible. Only negligible 

impacts to benthic communities associated with the accidental release of trash and debris are expected 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-199

under the cumulative activities scenario. The proposed action would potentially add a very small amount 

of accidentally released trash and debris, resulting in a negligible incremental increase in impacts to 

MPAs under the cumulative scenario.

Seafloor Disturbance

Seafloor disturbance potentially may occur from activities associated with the cumulative scenario 

including oil and gas development, marine minerals use, renewable energy development, 

geosequestration, LNG terminals, dredged material disposal, and the installation of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM would require site-specific information prior to approving the 

activities under their jurisdiction, which includes most cumulative scenario activities. However, BOEM 

requirements do not protect the resources from activities outside of BOEM jurisdiction (e.g., commercial 

and recreational fishing, cable installation, dredged material disposal).

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Gray’s Reef NMS offshore Georgia and the Monitor NMS offshore Cape Hatteras are located in deep 

water and in areas where cumulative scenario activities could occur. There are no other NMSs located in 

the AOI that would be subject to seafloor-disturbing activities associated with the cumulative scenario. 

Federal regulations (15 CFR part 922) prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS, including drilling 

and detonating explosives. Federal regulations also prohibit breaking, damaging, or removing any bottom 

formation, constructing structures, and discharging wastes other than effluent from MSDs, vessel cooling 

water, and fish parts within the Gray’s Reef NMS (15 CFR § 922.92). In addition, bottom-disturbing 

activities proposed within the boundaries of an NMS would not be permitted, whereas bottom-disturbing 

activities proposed near the boundaries of an NMS would be assigned a setback distance (to be 

determined at the time the action is before BOEM and in consultation with the Sanctuary Manager) as a 

condition of permit approval. Given these restrictions, seafloor disturbance within NMS from the 

cumulative scenario as well as the proposed action would not occur.

Deepwater Marine Protected Areas

Impacts to federally designated fishery management areas such as deepwater MPAs would be 

minimized with the BOEM requirement for site-specific information prior to seafloor-disturbing activities 

within their jurisdiction. Therefore, the impacts from the cumulative scenario from these activities would 

be negligible. Impacts associated with Alternative A would result in a negligible incremental increase in 

seafloor disturbance under the cumulative scenario.

Other Federal Fishery Management Areas

Seafloor-disturbing commercial fishing activities are restricted in other federally designated fishery 

management areas; therefore, the impacts from these activities would be negligible. Establishment of 

dredged material disposal areas is under the jurisdiction of the USEPA. Site-specific information is 

required prior to placement of new disposal areas, and these federally designated fishery management 

areas would be precluded from use; therefore, impacts from these activities would not occur. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.11.2, the impacts from seafloor disturbance associated with the proposed action 

would result in negligible impacts; therefore, the impacts associated with the proposed action would 

result in no incremental increase in impacts associated with seafloor disturbance under the cumulative 

scenario.

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

Seafloor disturbance resulting from cumulative scenario activities is unlikely to be allowed in most 

coastal MPAs such as National Seashores, NEP and NERR areas, and NWRs located inshore of the AOI; 

therefore, seafloor disturbances are not likely to affect biological and archaeological resources in these 

coastal MPAs. However, seafloor disturbance could occur in some coastal MPAs that include shallow 

marine waters where benthic organisms could be affected by seafloor disturbance. The coastal MPAs 

with boundaries that overlap with the AOI and could be affected by G&G activities are discussed in 
4-200 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Chapter 4.2.11.2. Impacts from seafloor disturbance from G&G in these areas would be expected to be 

negligible. The impacts associated with the proposed action would result in no incremental increase in 

seafloor disturbance to MPAs under the cumulative scenario.

Drilling Discharges

Cumulative scenario activities that would include discharges of drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and other 

effluents from drilling rigs (e.g., oil and gas development, geosequestration) would also require the 

submittal and agency review of site-specific information regarding benthic communities and submerged 

cultural resources prior to activity approval. In addition, setbacks from sensitive benthic communities 

would be implemented for all bottom-disturbing activities. These measures would ensure that physical 

impacts to sensitive benthic communities and submerged cultural resources within MPAs are avoided and 

that resources within MPAs are protected from impacts from cumulative scenario activities.

Drilling discharges from proposed G&G activities (i.e., COST wells) have been shown to cause a 

negligible impact to benthic communities (Chapter 4.2.1.2) and submerged cultural resources

(Chapter 4.2.10.2). The proposed action would add an extremely small area of seafloor disturbance to 

the cumulative area affected and would not include MPAs. Impacts associated with the proposed action 

are expected to result in a no incremental increase in impacts to MPAs under the cumulative scenario.

Accidental Fuel Spills

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to MPAs would vary depending on the location and size of the spill, if 

the survey and drilling activities were located near an MPA. However, before exploration drilling could 

occur in the Atlantic OCS, impacts would be analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared 

for any EP submitted by an operator. Potential impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well 

blowout would be examined in the EA prior to the drilling of any wells. In addition, a project-specific 

EA would require an analysis of site-specific and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts from 

drilling activities and potential accidental crude oil spills. With the required mitigation measures in place 

and with oversight of these activities by the BSEE, an accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well 

is not anticipated; however, a spill still could occur. However, with these mitigation measures in place, 

the impacts to MPAs from exploratory drilling operations would be expected to be negligible. 

The cumulative scenario considers a significant volume of overall vessel traffic, particularly around 

ports along the U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing

activity would also contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk 

of collision or grounding with a subsequent loss of fuel into offshore or nearshore waters. The impacts 

arising from an accidental fuel spill from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario for NMSs, other 

Federal fishery management areas (deepwater MPAs), and coastal MPAs are expected to range from 

negligible to minor. The likelihood of an accidental fuel spill during seismic airgun surveys or other 

G&G activities in proximity to MPAs is considered to be remote, and the associated impacts to MPAs are 

expected to be negligible to minor (Chapter 4.2.11.3). Therefore, the incremental increase in impacts 

from an accidental fuel spill arising from vessel collision during G&G activities would be considered 

extremely small. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the low probability of a G&G 

activity-related fuel spill would result in a negligible to minor incremental increase in impacts to MPAs 

under the cumulative scenario.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-201

4.2.12. Other Marine Uses

4.2.12.1. Description of the Affected Environment

Other existing marine uses in the AOI include shipping and marine transportation, military range 

complexes supporting exercises and testing, sand and gravel mining; renewable energy development, oil 

and gas exploration, dredged material disposal, research activities from bottom-founded structures, and 

known sea bottom obstructions. Commercial and recreational fishing have been described in 

Chapters 4.2.7 and 4.2.8, respectively. As of May 2011, there are no existing deepwater LNG ports or 

pending applications for such ports within the Mid-Atlantic or South Atlantic Planning Areas (USDOT, 

Maritime Administration [MARAD], 2011a). There are no petroleum platforms, pipeline production 

systems, or active leases for oil and gas activities in the U.S. Atlantic planning areas (USDOI, BOEM, 

2011e). An oil and gas lease sale was planned offshore Virginia in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area for 

June 2012 that has since been cancelled. There are no current plans for oil and gas exploration, although 

permits for geophysical surveying that generally precede exploration have been submitted to BOEM.

The Multipurpose Marine Cadastre (2011), a web-based tool developed by BOEM, the NOAA 

Coastal Services Center, and other partners, was used as the main basis for identifying uses of the AOI. 

The Multipurpose Marine Cadastre is an integrated marine information system that provides legal, 

physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common GIS framework. This tool is used by Federal 

regulatory agencies and others who are screening renewable energy sites and other offshore activities, as 

well as people working on regional and State MP efforts. At its core, this data viewer contains the official

U.S. marine cadastre, and it is the only place where users can see all of the official U.S. boundaries on 

one map. Similar to the nation’s land-based parcel system, a marine cadastre describes the spatial extent, 

rights, restrictions, and responsibilities of U.S. waters. All data come from the appropriate authoritative 

source; these organizations are responsible for data upkeep. In addition, data from BOEM and the Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) was used for other uses within the AOI.

4.2.12.1.1. Shipping and Marine Transportation

Six commercial deepwater ports are located along the coast adjacent to the AOI, as listed below and 

shown on Figure 4-36: 

• Norfolk, Virginia (Port of Virginia);

• Wilmington, North Carolina;

• Charleston, South Carolina;

• Savannah, Georgia;

• Brunswick, Georgia; and

• Jacksonville, Florida.

These ports (excluding Brunswick) are discussed further in Chapter 4.2.13. In addition, Delaware 

Bay provides access to Delaware River ports and terminals in the Wilmington, Delaware, and 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area and provides access to the Port of Baltimore via the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal. Chesapeake Bay provides access to the Port of Baltimore and numerous smaller ports in 

Maryland and Virginia.

Large commercial vessels (cargo ships, tankers, and container ships) use these ports to access 

overland rail and road routes to transport goods throughout the U.S. Other vessels using these ports 

include military vessels, commercial business craft (tug boats, fishing vessels, and ferries), commercial 

recreational craft (cruise ships and fishing/sight-seeing/diving charters), research vessels, and personal 

craft (fishing boats, house boats, yachts and sailboats, and other pleasure craft).

The USCG designates shipping fairways and establishes traffic separation schemes that control the 

movement of vessels as they approach ports (Figure 4-36) (33 CFR part 166). Each of the ports is 

serviced by a navigation channel maintained by the COE. Traffic fairways and the buoys and beacons 

that serve as aids to navigation are identified on NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey’s navigation charts.
4-202 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.12.1.2. Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use

Military range complexes and civilian space program use areas, including restricted areas and danger 

zones, are established in areas off U.S. coastlines to allow military forces to conduct training and testing 

activities. Most of the AOI is within military range complexes and civilian space program use areas, as 

shown in Figure 4-37. Military activities can include various air-to-air, air-to-surface, and 

surface-to-surface naval fleet training, submarine and antisubmarine training, and Air Force exercises.

Portions of the area are further defined as danger zones, which can be closed or subject to limited 

public access during intermittent periods. Danger zones and restricted areas are defined at 33 CFR § 

334.2, as described below:

(a) Danger Zone: A defined water area (or areas) used for target practice, bombing, 

rocket firing or other especially hazardous operations, normally for the armed forces. 

The danger zones may be closed to the public on a full-time or intermittent basis, as 

stated in the regulations.

(b) Restricted Area: A defined water area for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting 

public access to the area. Restricted areas generally provide security for Government 

property and/or protection to the public from the risks of property damage or injury 

arising from the Government's use of that area.

The five military-related restricted areas operated by DoD within the AOI extend from the 

Chesapeake Bay to Jacksonville, Florida (Figure 4-37). The Atlantic Fleet training Virginia Capes 

(VACAPES) Range Complex extends along the coastlines of Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina 

(U.S. Fleet Forces, 2009). Within VACAPES, the NASA, GSFC’s WFF owns and operates the launch 

range at the WFF which is located on Virginia’s eastern shore. The WFF serves as a flight test site for 

aerodynamic research and NASA conducts science, technology, and educational flight projects from WFF 

aboard rockets, balloons, and UAV’s, using the Atlantic waters for operations on almost a daily basis. 

The WFF is also home to several critical DoD programs. The Cherry Point Complex extends along the 

coastline of central North Carolina, and the Charleston Complex extends along the coastline of southern 

North Carolina and South Carolina. The Jacksonville complex extends along the coastlines of Georgia 

and north Florida to the Merritt Island NWR. The fifth military area is Cape Canaveral OPAREA, which 

is located along the coastline of Merritt Island (Figure 4-37). Training exercises include mine, surface, 

amphibious, and strike warfare involving bombing and missile exercises and mine neutralization. 

Airborne, surface, and submarine activities are involved. Within the VACAPES Range Complex, five 

mission impact areas are present that are the debris cones for rocket test and detonations between 2005 

and 2007 (Figure 4-37). These areas were showered with debris ranging in size from golf balls to the 

size of a small automobile. In addition, DoD has examined the compatibility of military activities and oil 

and gas development and infrastructure and identified areas that they deem incompatible (DoD, 2010).

Military range complexes and civilian space program use areas are designated for Joint Base 

Charleston, a combined Air Force and Navy installation in South Carolina, and Parris Island, a marine 

training facility also in South Carolina. A Danger Zone is also designated offshore Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina.

Three military facilities are located at the Port of Jacksonville: the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Naval Air Station Jacksonville, and Naval Station Mayport; together, these facilities represent the third 

largest concentration of the U.S. Naval fleet in the U.S. (World Port Source, 2011). These facilities also 

make use of offshore military range complexes and civilian space program use areas.

Military and civilian uses of the offshore sea and air areas are compatible, with Navy ships 

accounting for 3 percent of the total ship presence out to 371 km (200 nmi) (U.S. Fleet Forces, 2009). 

Where naval vessels and aircraft conduct operations that are not compatible with commercial or 

recreational transportation, they are confined to OPAREAs away from commercially used waterways and 

inside Special Use Airspace (U.S. Fleet Forces, 2009). Hazardous operations are communicated to all 

vessels and operators by use of Notices to Mariners issued by USCG and Notices to Airmen issued by the 

FAA.

NASA also has designated danger zones and restricted areas for rocket testing and shuttle launches. 

The NASA restricted areas within the AOI include offshore Wallops Island in Virginia and offshore of 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-203

the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral. The limits of the areas are established offshore of the 

facilities and have restricted access during rocket and shuttle launch activities (33 CFR § 334.525).

4.2.12.1.3. Sand and Gravel Mining

BOEM may offer and enter into a noncompetitive, negotiated lease for sand, shell, or gravel resources 

following 1994 amendments to the OCSLA (P.L. 103-426) for certain types of projects funded in whole 

or part by, or authorized by, the Federal Government. The Shore Protection Provisions of the Water 

Resource Development Act of 1999 amended P.L. 103-426 prohibited charging State and local 

governments a fee for using OCS sand. For all other uses, a competitive bidding process is required 

under Section 8(k)(1) of the OCSLA. The marine minerals program administered by BOEM is 

dominated by the identification and use of OCS sand for beach nourishment and coastal restoration 

projects (USDOI, BOEM, 2011f). Figure 4-38 shows the locations of current and potential OCS sand 

and gravel borrow areas within the AOI; the areas are shown in greater detail in Figures 4-38a, 4-38b, 

and 4-38c. Borrow area locations are as follows:

• Delaware Sand Resource Area (offshore Ocean View, Delaware); 

• Great Gull Bank Borrow Areas (offshore Ocean City, Maryland);

• Fenwick, Weaver, Isle of Wright, and Charlene Shoals (offshore Ocean City, 

Maryland); 

• Shoals A, B, C, D, and E (offshore Ocean City, Maryland); 

• Sandbridge Shoal Borrow Area (offshore Virginia Beach, Virginia);

• Shoals A and B (offshore Chincoteague, Virginia); 

• Little River Borrow Area (offshore North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina);

• Cane South Borrow Area (offshore Myrtle Beach, South Carolina);

• Surfside Borrow Area (offshore Garden City, South Carolina);

• Jacksonville and Duval Borrow Areas (offshore Jacksonville, Florida); and

• Canaveral Shoals Borrow Area (offshore Brevard County, Florida).

To date, BOEM has conveyed rights to about 38 million cubic yards of OCS sand for 26 coastal 

restoration projects in five states within the AOI. Some of these projects were done on an emergency 

basis, where imminent breaching of barrier islands was prevented by the rapid placement of OCS sand. 

Most of these projects used sand that was previously identified by BOEM through its cooperative sand 

evaluation program with coastal states (USDOI, BOEM, 2011a,f). 

4.2.12.1.4. Renewable Energy Development

The USDOI (2011a) has identified four WEAs offshore the Mid-Atlantic Coast, including three 

within the AOI offshore Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (Figure 4-39). In January 2012, BOEM 

issued a Final EA for these areas that included changes to the extent of the Maryland and Virginia WEAs 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). The revised WEAs are as follows:

• Delaware: The Delaware WEA rests between the incoming and outgoing shipping 

routes for Delaware Bay and is made up of 11 whole OCS blocks and 16 partial 

blocks. The closest point to shore is 18.5 km (10 nmi) due east from Rehoboth 

Beach, Delaware. The area is approximately 122 nmi2 (103,323 ac or 41,813 ha).

• Maryland: The Maryland WEA is defined as 9 whole OCS blocks and 11 partial 

blocks. The western edge of the WEA is located approximately 18.5 km (10 nmi) 

from the Ocean City, Maryland coast, and the eastern edge is approximately 50 km

(27 nmi) from Ocean City, Maryland. The area is approximately 94 nmi2 (79,706 ac 

or 32,256 ha).

• Virginia: The Virginia WEA consists of 19 whole OCS blocks and 1 partial block. 

The western edge of the area is approximately 33.4 km (18 nmi) from Virginia

Beach, and the eastern edge is approximately 68.5 km (37 nmi) from Virginia Beach. 

The area is approximately 133 nmi2 (112,799 ac or 45,648 ha).
4-204 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Identification of the WEAs is part of the Agency’s “Smart from the Start” approach announced in 

November 2010 that uses appropriate designated areas, coordinated environmental studies, large-scale 

planning and expedited approval processes to speed offshore wind energy development.

In 2009, USDOI issued four limited leases authorizing wind resource data collection on lease blocks 

offshore Delaware and New Jersey (USDOI, MMS, 2009f). One of the lease blocks is offshore Delaware 

and is within the AOI for this Programmatic EIS (Figure 4-39). 

In May 2011, the State of North Carolina completed a screening exercise of offshore regions for wind 

energy development, identifying 506 OCS lease blocks meeting their criteria for wind facility 

development (Thrive in North Carolina, 2011). The screening exercise examined potential environmental 

suitability; however, the 506-OCS-block area is not proposed for wind development at this time. The 

screening resulted in an area consisting of 354 lease blocks that will be assessed within the period covered 

by the Programmatic EIS. The area is approximately 2,378 nmi2 (2,015,428 ac or 815,616 ha). In 

December 2012, BOEM issued a call for information and nominations for commercial leasing on three

areas offshore North Carolina that comprise 195 whole lease blocks and 60 partial blocks totaling 

1,441 nmi2 (1,220,735 ac or 494,016 ha) (Federal Register, 2012e). 

In January 2013, BOEM issued a commercial wind energy lease to Bluewater Wind Deleware LLC

for approximately 96,430 ac (39,024 ha) offshore Delaware. The lease comprises 11 whole lease blocks 

and 95 sub-blocks (Federal Register, 2013a). 

Atlantic Grid Holdings LLC has proposed to develop a high-voltage direct current transmission cable 

offshore the Atlantic Coast running from northern New Jersey to Virginia in five phases (Atlantic Wind 

Connection, 2011a,b). The company has requested a right-of-way that is approximately 1,320 km 

(820 mi) in length, with as many as a dozen offshore platforms (substations).

4.2.12.1.5. Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites

There are 11 final dredged material disposal sites designated on the Atlantic OCS (40 CFR § 228.15). 

These sites range in size from 3.4 to 40.5 km2 (1 to 11.8 nmi2

) and are used for the disposal of dredged 

material from the maintenance dredging of commercial and military ports. The locations are offshore of 

the following areas (Figure 4-40): 

• Dam Neck, Virginia;

• Norfolk, Virginia;

• Morehead City, North Carolina;

• Wilmington, North Carolina;

• Georgetown Harbor, South Carolina;

• Charleston, South Carolina;

• Savannah, Georgia;

• Brunswick Harbor, Georgia;

• Fernandina Beach, Florida;

• Jacksonville, Florida; and

• Canaveral Harbor, Florida.

There are two additional ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs) located in the AOI: New 

Wilmington, North Carolina, and Port Royal, South Carolina. These two areas are 32.2 and 3.4 km2 

(9.4 and 1 nmi2), respectively (USEPA, 2011a).

The COE is the permitting authority for dredged material disposal. However, it is unlikely that the 

COE would permit G&G survey activity within any ODMDS. When issuing a permit, the COE must 

obtain USEPA’s concurrence, use USEPA developed dumping criteria, and use USEPA-designated ocean 

disposal sites to the maximum extent feasible. Virtually all ocean dumping in the U.S. today comprises 

dredged material (USEPA, 2011b).

4.2.12.1.6. Oil and Gas Exploration

BOEM manages the leasing program for the 1.76-billion-ac OCS, under the authority of the OCSLA. 

These Federal lands are organized into 26 planning areas, approximately 80 percent of which have been 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-205

unavailable for leasing because of Congressional moratoria and administrative withdrawals enacted over 

the years, including the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas.

There are currently no active oil and gas leases or oil and gas exploration, development, or production 

activities on the Atlantic OCS. Ten oil and gas lease sales were held in the Atlantic between 1976 and 

1983. Fifty-one wells were drilled in the Atlantic OCS between 1975 and 1984, including one well in the 

Mid-Atlantic Planning Area and seven wells in the South Atlantic Planning Area (Figure 4-41). At least 

one drillable prospect was identified during early Atlantic activity in the 1980s, Manteo, approximately 

45 mi (72 km) northeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in water approximately from 820 m (2,700 ft) 

deep (USDOI, MMS, 1998). As a result of leasing during Sales 56 and 78 in September 1981 and 

September 1983, respectively, a 21 OCS block unit was approved by MMS in 1990 for this prospect. A 

1998 review of the status of the Manteo project is contained in this OCS Report (USDOI, MMS, 1998).

In April 2007, this Agency approved a Five-Year Program for the OCS that included a contingent 

lease sale on the Atlantic OCS offshore the Commonwealth of Virginia. Contingent defined a condition 

that would be obtained if the Atlantic drilling moratoria imposed by Executive Order and the U.S. 

Congress for the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas in 1990 and 1991, respectively, were 

lifted at some point within the Five-Year Program. On July 14, 2008, by Executive Order, President Bush 

announced a modification of the Presidential Withdrawal imposed on the Atlantic OCS. On 

September 30, 2008, the Congress let expire the previous USDOI appropriations measure that had 

imposed an Atlantic leasing ban. One oil and gas lease sale on the Atlantic OCS was scheduled in a 

program area of the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area in June 2012. This Agency began preparation of an EIS 

for the proposed lease sale.

After the administrative bans and Congressional moratoria were lifted, this Agency began preparation 

for special interest Lease Sale 220 off the coast of Virginia. The program area for proposed Sale 220

consisted of 593 whole and partial OCS blocks encompassing approximately 2.9 million ac. Water 

depths in the program area range from 100 to 11,500 ft (30 to 3,500 m). The program area was roughly 

triangular in shape with the apex pointed east. The entire program area was located more than 50 statute 

miles from the boundary between the Commonwealth of Virginia and Federal waters, and extended 

seaward to 183 statute miles (Figure 4-41). 

Scoping for the EIS in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR part 1500) 

was conducted in two stages. The scoping process began November 13, 2008, with the publication of a 

combined Call for Information and NOI to Prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (Federal Register, 

2008d), and public notices were printed in newspapers, announced on the MMS website, and e-mailed to 

a list serve of interested parties. A 45-day comment period was initially announced. In response to 

several requests, this agency extended the comment period to 60 days on January 7, 2009. The comment 

period closed on January 13, 2009. The public meetings required for scoping were deferred to a 

subsequent Federal Register notice. The MMS received comments from nearly 27,000 sources; of these, 

58 percent were basically opposed to the proposed lease sale and 42 percent were basically in support of 

it.

Scoping was reopened with a new NOI published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2010 (Federal

Register, 2010j), with scheduled public meetings in Ocean City, Maryland; Norfolk, Virginia; and 

Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Scoping was set to close May 17, 2010. After the Deepwater Horizon

explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior re-evaluated the decision to hold 

Lease Sale 220 and decided on May 7, 2010 (Federal Register, 2010k) to postpone the comment period 

and cancel the public meetings that had been scheduled. This OCS lease sale offshore Virginia stands as 

cancelled.

4.2.12.1.7. Communication and Research Activities from Bottom-Founded Structures

Beginning in the early 1980’s, the U.S. Navy constructed eight offshore towers in the Georgia Bight 

to support its Tactical Aircrew Combat System (Figure 4-42). The system consists of six perimeter 

towers arranged in a rectangle over the mid- to outer shelf, with two master stations in the center of the 

northern and southern halves of the range. The grid area covers an area of 115 by 50 km (71 by 31 mi), 

roughly 6,000 km2 (2,317 mi2

), in waters from 25 to 45 m (82 to 147 ft) deep. The platforms are similar 

in appearance to small oil platforms. There are two platform styles, both of which are unmanned: 

(1) four-legged master platforms; and (2) three-legged remotes. This system exists to provide rapid 

(real-time) tracking of military combat aircraft in offshore military range complexes and civilian space 
4-206 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

program use areas to permit instructors onshore to observe and interact with pilots during exercises. The 

two master towers, R4 and R6, and R2 are four-legged platforms. These towers reach 52 m (170 ft) over 

the ocean surface and have two decks; the instrument deck is approximately 21 m (70 ft) above water and 

holds a large environmentally controlled room, a diesel generator, a photovoltaic cell array, and small 

wind turbines. The helicopter deck is 6 m (20 ft) above the instrument deck, and extends 15 m (50 ft) 

beyond the instrument deck to the north. A 30-m (100 ft) tall communications tower is on the south end 

of the helicopter deck, where two 6-m (20-ft) poles hold small wind generators. The other towers are 

three-legged platforms with smaller instrument decks and only the photovoltaic array. Electrical 

components are housed in a large shed on the helicopter deck, but there are no wind generators on the 

three-legged towers, and the communications tower is 15 m (50 ft) tall.

Since 1998 the Navy towers have been instrumented to participate in the SABSOON, managed by 

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. The program carries out long-term and real-time monitoring of a 

number of parameters including barometric pressure, precipitation, humidity, and dew point; air and water 

temperature; water salinity, density, light levels, chlorophyll, and dissolved organic matter; and velocity 

of currents and sea states that are useful for tracking movements of water masses offshore.

4.2.12.1.8. Known Sea Bottom Obstructions

The NOAA AWOIS database identifies the location of problematic bottom obstructions that include 

confirmed or suspected shipwrecks. Shipwrecks and obstructions are discussed in Chapter 4.2.10, and 

known locations are mapped in Figure 4-31. Artificial reefs are also widely distributed along the Atlantic 

Coast, where they are used to improve or enhance the productivity of bottom conditions and fish habitat. 

Artificial reefs are discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.1.3, and locations are shown in Figure 4-6. The Mid- and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas contains significant existing undersea cable infrastructure with additional 

cable infrastructure planned. Existing cable locations from publicly available data are mapped in 

Figure 4-43. There are additional cables located in the AOI with location data not available to the public; 

therefore, identification of cables within specific survey areas with bottom-disturbing activities will be 

required to be coordinated with the North American Submarine Cable Association. 

4.2.12.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses the potential impacts of routine G&G activities associated with Alternative A

on other marine uses in the AOI. As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1, IPFs for other marine uses include 

(1) vessel traffic, (2) aircraft traffic and noise, (3) vessel exclusion zones, and (4) seafloor disturbance. 

Vessel traffic is related to all types of G&G activities; vessel exclusion zones relate to G&G activities for 

oil and gas exploration; and seafloor disturbances relate to all types of G&G activities. For the purpose of 

this discussion, vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones will be dealt with together since they are 

interrelated and result in impacts of a similar nature.

4.2.12.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to other marine uses would include those where little to no measurable impacts on 

other marine uses are observed or expected.

Minor impacts to other marine uses would include those that are detectable but are neither severe nor 

extensive. Minor impacts to other marine uses would include limited, localized, and short-term 

disruptions of other marine uses (from vessel traffic, vessel exclusion zones and space use conflicts, and 

seafloor disturbance).

Moderate impacts to other marine uses would be detectable and extensive but not severe or 

detectable, localized, and severe. Moderate impacts to other marine uses would include detectable 

disruptions of other marine uses (from vessel traffic, vessel exclusion zones and space use conflicts, and 

seafloor disturbance).

Major impacts to other marine uses would be detectable extensive, and severe. Major impacts to 

other marine uses would include any G&G activity that results in (1) a substantial increase in the volume 

of vessel traffic for an extended period over a large area resulting in an interruption of other marine uses; 

(2) broad scale long-term vessel exclusion zones resulting in long-term space use conflicts with other 

marine uses; and/or (3) severe and extensive disturbance to the seafloor.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-207

The significance criteria noted above have been developed as broad impact definitions. On a 

resource-specific basis, they are further defined for significant impacts as follows:

• Shipping and Marine Transportation: a minor impact would include short-term, 

localized disruption of marine vessel activities and movements; a moderate impact 

would include long-term or widespread detectable changes in vessel activity patterns 

but without severe consequences; and a major impact would include extensive 

interference with shipping and marine transportation resulting from G&G activities 

occurring in shipping channels, increased accident risks for other vessels and/or their 

equipment from towed G&G equipment, extensive hindrance (i.e., access) for other 

vessels, and/or extensive interference with normal port operations from G&G vessel 

traffic exceeding port capacity.

• Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use: a major impact

would include extensive interference with military operations by G&G activities 

occurring within these areas. For ODMDSs, a major impact would include extensive 

disturbance to dredged disposal sites by intrusive boring or towed geophysical 

equipment.

• Communication and Research Activities from Bottom-Founded Structures: a 

major impact would include extensive damage to bottom-founded structures from 

seafloor-disturbing G&G activities (e.g., bottom-towed equipment or cabling).

• Known Sea-Bottom Obstructions: a major impact would include destruction of 

historical context, undersea cable, or intrusive seafloor-disturbing G&G activities.

4.2.12.2.2. Evaluation

Vessel Traffic and Vessel Exclusion Zones

Vessel traffic generated by the G&G activities within all three program areas is discussed in detail in 

Chapter 3.5.1.3. Depending on the type of G&G survey being performed, the number of survey vessels 

typically would be one to three vessels. Vessel size can range from 20 m (65 ft) to 80-90 m (200-300 ft) 

and the vessels typically move at speeds of 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). The level of vessel traffic related to G&G 

activities would not represent a significant increase in total vessel traffic when compared to existing 

vessel traffic in offshore waters. Vessels performing surveys are slow-moving, which allows for other 

vessels to easily move out of the way. In addition, survey efforts related to renewable energy and marine 

minerals are typically on the order of 5 days or less and are site-specific. Survey durations for oil and gas 

exploration can continue for weeks or months based on the size of the survey area and can occur 

anywhere within the AOI. In all three cases, local ports would be used for either supply vessels or as 

ports of operation.

The proposed action includes extensive 2D and 3D surveys involving towed streamer arrays requiring 

vessel exclusion zones within the AOI (Chapter 3.5.1.5). The scenario for the 2012-2020 timeframe 

includes 616,174 line km of 2D streamer surveys, 2,500 blocks of 3D streamer surveys (or 

120,000 line km, assuming 48 line km [30 line mi] per block), and 900 line km of 3D WAZ surveys. For 

each of these surveys, the establishment of a vessel exclusion zone around the source vessel and its towed 

streamer arrays is required. The size of the vessel exclusion zone varies depending on the array 

configuration and the radius from the ship that marine mammal observers can effectively observe, but a 

typical zone would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km (0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total 

of 1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. Since survey vessels move at speeds of 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr), the 

length of time that any particular point would be within an vessel exclusion zone would be approximately 

1 hr. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.5, the vessel exclusion zone is simply an area monitored by a 

seismic survey operator and has no formal status or designation by the USCG. However, a Local Notice 

to Mariners would be issued that would specify the survey dates and locations and the recommended 

avoidance requirements.

All of the vessels involved in G&G activities would operate out of onshore support bases 

(Chapter 3.5.1.10). Five ports in the AOI have been identified as potential support bases (as well as 

numerous smaller ports for the smaller vessels). Ports and service bases would be used as launching 
4-208 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

points for the structures, equipment, supplies, and crew that serve in addition to providing products and 

services to the vessels.

Seismic airgun surveys for oil and gas exploration are conducted by large ships that are likely to 

remain offshore for most of their survey duration. However, it is expected the vessels would return to an 

onshore support base a total of 125 times under the proposed action scenario. Survey vessels for 

renewable energy or marine minerals programs would be relatively small and are expected to make daily 

round trips to their shore base. The renewable energy scenario would require 4,255 vessel round trips for 

HRG surveys and 3,106-9,969 vessel round trips for geotechnical surveys. The marine minerals scenario 

would require 180 vessel round trips for HRG surveys and 93-615 vessel round trips for geotechnical 

surveys. These G&G vessel traffic estimates are for the entire period under consideration in this 

Programmatic EIS (i.e., 2012-2020).

Shipping and Marine Transportation 

Six commercial deepwater ports are located along the coast adjacent to the AOI (Chapter 4.2.12.1.1). 

Vessels using these ports include large commercial vessels, military vessels, commercial business craft, 

commercial recreational craft, research vessels, and personal craft. Current levels of shipping and marine 

transportation occurring along the entire U.S. Atlantic Coast amount to nearly 30,000 arrivals for 

2002-2004 (USDOC, NMFS, 2008) for vessels of 150 gross registered tons (GRT) or more.

Shipping and maritime vessel activity in the six major commercial ports of the AOI is substantial, 

with several thousand vessel arrivals per port per year noted. Actual vessel movements consider both 

vessel approach/arrival and departure from a port facility, indicating that vessel transits levels through the 

region are approximately twice the vessel arrival levels. Based on 2004 USCG data, more than 

54,000 vessel transits (involving commercial vessels of at least 150 GRT) occur at U.S. east coast ports 

per year, a significant proportion of which either use ports of the AOI or may traverse waters of the AOI 

during inbound or outbound transit.

Based on the vessel traffic expected under G&G activities (Chapter 3.5.1.3), impacts to shipping and 

marine transport are expected to be negligible since the number of G&G-related vessel trips involved 

(approximately 4,250) and the duration of these surveys is small in relation to the existing vessel traffic 

throughout the AOI. There would not be a sufficient increase in vessel traffic to impact shipping and 

marine transportation. 

Impacts from G&G activities on shipping and marine transportation would result from limited access 

to routes when vessel exclusion zones (Chapter 3.5.1.5) are in place. Impacts would be of relatively 

short duration with the time and extent dependent on the type of G&G activity; all impacts would be of 

short duration, on the order of days for surveys related to renewable energy and marine minerals and up to 

months with surveys related to oil and gas exploration; however, vessel exclusion zones would move with 

the investigation equipment, so one specific location would not be impacted for an extended period of 

time. Furthermore, the lease areas to be surveyed would not be located within maintained navigation 

channels and would not disrupt primary commercial ship traffic routes.

Preclusion of commercial ships from shipping lanes constitutes a space-use conflict. Seismic

research vessels conducting G&G activities would operate under a “restricted ability to maneuver” 

designation, which means other vessels in the path of the survey vessel must give way. All vessels 

operating with restricted maneuverability are required to carry the lights and signals described in Rule 27 

of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). Towed streamers are required 

to be marked with an orange buoy equipped with a quick flashing light and radar reflector. In addition, 

because of the length of the streamer arrays, the survey vessel requires considerable turning room 

between tracklines. Thus, the shipping lanes precluded to commercial ships could extend beyond the 

planned survey areas when appropriate allowances are made for maneuvering the vessel. However,

proposed seismic airgun surveys would use from one to three vessels for a survey that would operate for a 

limited duration. Moreover, commercial shipping vessels would be notified of G&G activities through 

the “Notice to Mariners” process in advance of any seismic airgun surveys. The Notice to Mariners 

would specify the survey dates and locations and the recommended avoidance requirements.

While all of the vessels involved in G&G activities would operate out of onshore support bases 

(ports), the number of vessels and the number of anticipated round trips to the support bases is small 

when compared to the existing daily vessel traffic and usage of onshore support bases in the AOI. If the 

larger vessels used for oil and gas seismic surveying are operating out of large ports with extensive 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-209

capacity, each port would be able to accommodate the increased vessel traffic without interference with 

existing marine traffic. If smaller ports are used for the smaller vessels (approximately 20 m [66 ft]) 

deployed for the types of surveys required for renewable energy and the marine minerals programs, there 

could be limited effects from the increased vessel traffic on both port capacity and port access 

(e.g., navigation into and out of port, within port maneuvering). Impacts to large ports from G&G vessel 

traffic are expected to be negligible. Large survey vessels would not be using smaller ports. Impacts on 

smaller ports are expected to range from negligible to minor and should be evaluated on a 

project-specific basis.

Overall, impacts to shipping and marine transportation would be of relatively short duration with the 

time and extent dependent on the type of G&G activity and are expected to be negligible to minor. 

Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use 

Military range complexes and civilian space program use areas, including restricted area and danger 

zones, are discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.2. Most of the AOI is within military range complexes and 

civilian space program use areas, and G&G activities would be subject to restrictions imposed by military 

and NASA needs, rules, and regulations. As discussed in Chapter 2.1.2.5, coordination by the vessel 

operators or contractors performing G&G activities is required with the appropriate military range 

complex, command headquarters, or NASA point of contact. Vessel traffic levels and vessel exclusion 

zones associated with G&G activities are small and of limited duration but could be an obstruction to 

surface use by military units, depending upon their location. Potential impacts of G&G activities to 

military range complexes and civilian space program use would be negligible and avoidable when 

coordinated with DoD and NASA prior to commencement. The use of the sea surface by vessels in 

support of the proposed action would occur within areas also belonging to various military range 

complexes or NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), the latter of which can be affected by launch debris

(Figure 4-37). Conflicts between G&G activities and scheduled military operations can be largely 

avoided by assigning military coordination as a condition of permit approval (i.e., similar to 

NTL 2009-G06, the military coordination lease stipulation in effect in the Gulf of Mexico) 

(Chapter 2.1.2.5). Mitigation of this type would require the G&G operator to contact designated DoD or 

NASA personnel identified for the purpose to be notified of the nature and schedule for any pending 

G&G activity planned within military range complexes or NASA’s use areas. Such notification and 

communication would ensure that authorities are aware of pending G&G activities and would provide a 

mechanism to avoid scheduling conflicts, should the need arise.

Sand and Gravel Mining 

There are currently seven OCS sand and gravel borrow area location within the AOI

(Chapter 4.2.12.1.3). Impacts to sand and gravel mining from G&G vessel traffic and exclusions zones 

(resulting from oil and gas exploration and renewable energy surveys) would be negligible. As 

previously stated, both vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones are small and of limited duration; 

similarly, sand and gravel mining occurs over a relatively short time period, decreasing the chance for any 

overlap of activities. Furthermore, G&G activities associated with marine minerals surveys 

(Chapter 3.5.1.3.3) are in support of sand and gravel mining.

The marine minerals scenario includes a maximum activity level estimated at 12,100 km or 

approximately 1,450 hr of surveying across 180 8-hr operational survey days for all geophysical survey 

activities. The marine minerals G&G activities are to be conducted in support of identification and use of 

OCS sand for beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects (USDOI, BOEM, 2011f) through 

BOEM’s cooperative sand evaluation program with coastal states in the AOI. Since a portion of the G&G 

activities are in support of sand and gravel mining, impacts are expected to be negligible as there is no 

potential for use conflicts.

Renewable Energy Development

Renewable energy development within the AOI includes three WEAs, one limited lease block area, 

and four environmentally suitable areas for use in the near future (Chapter 4.2.12.1.4). Impacts to 

renewable energy development from G&G vessel traffic and exclusions zones (resulting from oil and gas 
4-210 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

exploration and marine minerals surveys) would be negligible, since both vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones are small and of limited duration. Furthermore, G&G activities associated with 

renewable energy surveys (Chapter 3.5.1.3.2) are to be conducted in support of renewable energy 

development.

Vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones (established as part of renewable energy surveys) would 

occur on new, undeveloped lease areas and would not affect current or future renewable energy 

development projects within the AOI. Therefore, since there are no conflicts of use within renewable 

energy development areas, impacts to renewable energy development from vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones are expected to be negligible. 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites

There are 11 final dredged material disposal sites on the Atlantic OCS and two additional ODMDSs 

in the AOI (Chapter 4.2.12.1.5). Impacts from vessel traffic and exclusions zones associated with the 

proposed action are expected to be negligible since the number of vessels involved and the duration of the 

surveys is small. Impacts on ODMDSs would result from limited access to routes when vessel exclusion 

zones (Chapter 3.5.1.5) are in place. Impacts would be of relatively short duration, with the time and 

extent dependent on the type of G&G activity; all impacts would be of short duration, on the order of days 

for surveys related to renewable energy and marine minerals and up to months with surveys related to oil 

and gas exploration; however, vessel exclusion zones would move with the investigation equipment so 

that one specific location is not impacted for an extended duration.

Preclusion of vessels using the disposal sites would constitute a space-use conflict. Seismic vessels 

conducting G&G activities operate under a “restricted ability to maneuver” designation, which means 

other vessels in the path of the survey vessel must give way. In addition, because of the length of the 

streamer arrays, the survey vessel requires considerable turning room between tracklines. Thus, the 

disposal sites precluded to vessels could extend beyond the planned survey areas when appropriate 

allowances are made for maneuvering the vessel. However, proposed seismic airgun surveys would use 

one to three vessels that would operate for a limited duration. Moreover, as part of the normal seismic 

airgun survey planning process, areas where “restricted ability to maneuver” may exist would be 

identified and accounted for during planning. All vessels operating within an area planned for a seismic 

airgun survey would be notified of G&G activities in advance via the “Notice to Mariners” process. 

Overall, impacts to ODMDSs from G&G activities are expected to be negligible. 

Oil and Gas Exploration 

There are currently no active oil and gas leases or oil and gas exploration, development, or production 

activities on the Atlantic OCS (Chapter 4.2.12.1.6). The G&G activities under the proposed action 

would occur on undeveloped lease areas and would not affect current or future oil and gas exploration 

projects. Impacts to oil and gas exploration from G&G activities are expected to be negligible. 

Communication and Research Activities from Bottom-Founded Structures

The U.S. Navy has constructed eight offshore towers in the Georgia Bight arranged within an area of 

115 by 50 km (71 by 31 mi), roughly 6,000 km2 (2,317 mi2

) (Chapter 4.2.12.1.7) used in support of the 

Tactical Aircrew Combat System to provide tracking of military aircraft in offshore military range 

complexes and civilian space program use areas. The G&G activities occurring within the vicinity of the 

Tactical Aircrew Combat System structures would be subject to restrictions imposed by military needs, 

rules, and regulations and require coordination with the DoD or NASA prior to commencement. Vessel 

traffic levels and vessel exclusion zones related to G&G activities are small and of limited duration but 

could be an obstruction to surface use by military units depending upon their location. Potential impacts 

would be avoidable with proper military and NASA coordination assigned as a condition of permit 

approval similar to NTL 2009-G06, the military coordination lease stipulation in effect in the Gulf of 

Mexico (Chapter 2.1.2.5). Overall, impacts to communication and research activities from G&G 

activities are expected to be negligible. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-211

Known Sea Bottom Obstructions 

A review of all databases and secondary sources has identified 4,676 known wrecks, obstructions, 

archaeological sites, occurrences, or sites marked as “unknown” in the study area. Shipwrecks and 

obstructions are discussed in Chapter 4.2.10, within the context of archaeological resources. In addition, 

artificial reefs are also widely distributed along the Atlantic Coast (Chapter 4.2.1.1.3). Vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones relate to surface-based activities and so do not pose a threat to sea bottom 

obstructions, including undersea cables. Therefore, impacts to known sea bottom obstructions from 

vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones are negligible. 

Aircraft Traffic and Noise

Remote sensing surveys associated with oil and gas exploration and development activities would 

include aeromagnetic surveys (Chapter 3.2.2.6.5) and helicopter support during drilling of COST wells 

and shallow test wells (Chapter 3.2.2.4). BOEM anticipates that one or two aeromagnetic surveys may 

be conducted in the AOI during the time period covered by the Programmatic EIS. As discussed in detail 

in Chapter 3.5.1.4, the surveys would be conducted by fixed-wing aircraft flying at speeds of about 

135 kn (250 km/hr) (Reeves, 2005). Most offshore aeromagnetic surveys are flown at altitudes between 

61 and 152 m (200 and 500 ft). Line spacing varies depending on the objectives, but typical grids are 

0.5 by 1.0 mi or 1.0 by 1.0 mi. It is expected that a typical aeromagnetic survey may require 1-3 months 

to complete. In addition, helicopters are a potential source of aircraft noise during drilling of COST wells 

and shallow test wells. The oil and gas scenario assumes that up to three COST wells and up to five 

shallow test wells would be drilled in the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Areas during the time period of 

the Programmatic EIS. It is expected that drilling activities would be supported by a helicopter making 

one round-trip daily between the drilling rig and onshore support base. Noise generated by aircraft is 

associated with engines, which may be either reciprocating engines or turbine (turboprop) engines, 

airframe, and propellers (Richardson et al., 1995). Not considering harmonic tones, the dominant tones 

from fixed-wing aircraft are generally below 500 Hz. Because of the expected airspeed (135 kn), noise 

generated by survey aircraft is expected to be brief in duration for receptors on the ground or at the ocean 

surface.

All aircraft flights would originate from existing shore-based facilities and would file flight plans 

with the FAA before departure. These flights would not interfere with normal commercial traffic, which 

flies at much higher altitudes, nor are the number of G&G-related flights anticipated to be large enough to 

add stress to the air traffic control system.

Aircraft traffic and noise resulting from G&G activities would have no effect on most of the other 

marine uses, including shipping and marine transportation, sand and gravel mining, renewable energy

development, oil and gas exploration, dredged material disposal, research activities from bottom-founded 

structures, and known sea bottom obstructions. Aircraft traffic has the potential to interfere with military 

aircraft operations to be conducted within and between existing military range complexes supporting 

exercises and testing. As was noted for surface-based G&G activities to be operating within existing 

military range complexes and civilian space program use areas, G&G aircraft activities would be subject 

to restrictions imposed by military and NASA needs, rules, and regulations. Military range complexes 

and civilian space program use areas, including those restricted area and danger zones discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.12.1.2, include most of the AOI. Aircraft traffic levels and the duration of airborne surveys 

associated with G&G activities are very limited both in terms of survey area and duration. Potential 

impacts of G&G activities to military range complexes and civilian space program use would be 

negligible and avoidable when coordinated with DoD and NASA prior to commencement.

Seafloor Disturbance

Activities with the potential for seafloor disturbance include sampling by vibracoring, geologic core, 

and grab; use of jet probes and piezonecone penetrometers; the laying of ocean bottom nodal, ocean 

bottom cable, and vertical cable; the drilling of shallow test and COST wells; and the placement and 

retrieval of bottom-founded monitoring buoys. Proposed activities under Alternative A include bottom 

sampling, drilling, and anchoring. Bottom sampling would be conducted in all three program areas. The 

total area disturbed by core or grab sampling is expected to affect 11 ha (27.7 ac), which represents 
4-212 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

0.00001 percent of the AOI. Drilling of COST wells and shallow test wells would average about 2 ha 

(5 ac) per well. If all of the COST wells and shallow test wells in the proposed action scenario were 

drilled, the total seafloor disturbance would be about 16 ha (40 ac), or about 0.00002 percent of the AOI. 

Anchoring would include installation of 7-38 bottom-founded monitoring buoys as part of the renewable 

energy program. Similarly, the placement and removal of bottom cables and anchors would produce 

localized sediment disturbance to soft bottom communities. Total footprint area would range from 

3.85 to 20.9 m2

 (42 to 228 ft2) for the anchors, while the sweep area would range from 23.8 to 129.2 ha 

(59.5 to 323 ac). If all of the monitoring buoys in the proposed action scenario were installed, the total 

seafloor disturbance would be about 129 ha (319 ac), or about 0.0002 percent of the AOI and 

0.047 percent of the identified WEAs.

Shipping and Marine Transportation 

Six commercial deepwater ports are located along the coast adjacent to the AOI (Chapter 4.2.12.1.1). 

Vessels using these ports include large commercial vessels, military vessels, commercial business craft, 

commercial recreational craft, research vessels, and personal craft. Seafloor disturbance resulting from 

G&G activities would have no impact upon shipping and marine transportation. 

Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use 

Military range complexes and civilian space program use areas including restricted area and danger 

zones are discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.2. Most of the AOI is within military range complexes and 

civilian space program use areas, and G&G activities would be subject to restrictions imposed by military 

and NASA needs, rules, and regulations. Given that the DoD and NASA would require prior approval of 

any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures (including requiring site-specific information), impacts to military range complexes and civilian 

space program use areas are expected to be negligible and avoidable with proper coordination.

Sand and Gravel Mining 

There are currently seven OCS sand and gravel borrow area locations within the AOI 

(Chapter 4.2.12.1.3). Sampling activities for marine minerals would be conducted at specific borrow 

sites in water depths less than 30 m (98 ft). Much of the marine minerals activity is expected to occur 

within existing borrow sites offshore the Mid- and South Atlantic States (Figure 4-38). The G&G

activities that could cause seafloor disturbance are consistent with the ongoing use of sand and gravel 

mining areas and do not present a conflict of use, therefore, impacts to sand and gravel mining uses would 

be negligible. 

Renewable Energy Development

Renewable energy development within the AOI includes three WEAs, one limited lease block area, 

and four environmentally suitable areas for use in the near future (Chapter 4.2.12.1.4). Sampling for 

renewable energy projects would occur at specific sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water 

depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. The G&G activities that could 

cause seafloor disturbance are consistent with the ongoing use of renewable energy development areas 

and do not present a conflict of use, therefore impacts to renewable energy development areas would be 

negligible. 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites

There are 11 final dredged material disposal sites on the Atlantic OCS and two additional ODMDSs 

in the AOI (Chapter 4.2.12.1.5). The G&G activities that could cause seafloor disturbance are expected 

to avoid these disposal sites, given that placement of bottom-founded equipment or bottom sampling

could be compromised by subsequent or prior dredge spoil deposition, respectively. Activities associated 

with G&G-related bottom sampling or placement of bottom-founded equipment would not interfere with 

ocean dredged material disposal operations nor adversely affect any ODMDSs. As a result, G&G 

activities that could cause seafloor disturbance would not impact ODMDSs.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-213

Oil and Gas Exploration 

There are currently no active oil and gas leases or oil and gas exploration, development, or production 

activities on the Atlantic OCS (Chapter 4.2.12.1.6). The earliest that an OCS oil and gas lease sale could 

take place in the Mid- or South Atlantic Planning Area is 2018, and only if these planning areas were 

included as part of BOEM’s 2017-2022 Five-Year Program. Oil and gas exploration and development 

activities that could occur before 2018 would be limited to the prelease G&G activities that are analyzed 

in this Programmatic EIS. Prelease seismic surveys could take place as soon as BOEM completes the 

NEPA evaluation. BOEM would expect to evaluate the site-specific attributes for G&G permit 

applications that include the environmental consultations required by law. Processing of permit 

applications is typically carried out within approximately 45-60 days; however, BOEM will not proceed 

with the processing of an authorization for G&G activities until a NEPA analysis is complete and an 

applicant/operator has secured all necessary approvals. If a lease sale were held in 2018, oil and gas 

exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to occur between 2018 and 2020 (the end of the 

time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS) would be prelease and postlease G&G surveys and 

possibly drilling of an exploration well(s). Any sampling for oil and gas exploration would be conducted 

at specific lease blocks where structures (e.g., drilling rigs) may be installed. The G&G activities that 

could cause seafloor disturbance are consistent with the potential future use of oil and gas exploration 

areas and do not present a conflict of use, therefore impacts to oil and gas exploration areas would be 

negligible. 

Communication and Research Activities from Bottom-Founded Structures

The U.S. Navy has constructed eight offshore towers in the Georgia Bight arranged within a 115 by 

50 km (71 by 31 mi) area, roughly 6,000 km2 (2,317 mi2

) (Chapter 4.2.12.1.7), used in support of the 

Tactical Aircrew Combat System to provide tracking of military aircraft in offshore military range 

complexes and civilian space program use areas. BOEM would require coordination with DoD prior to 

any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures (including requiring site-specific information), it is expected that impacts to communication 

and research activities from bottom-founded structures would be very limited, a negligible impact. 

Known Sea Bottom Obstructions

A review of all databases and secondary sources has identified 4,676 reported wrecks, obstructions, 

archaeological sites, occurrences, or sites marked as “unknown” in the study area. Shipwrecks and 

obstructions are discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.1.8. In addition, artificial reefs are also widely distributed 

along the Atlantic Coast (Chapter 4.2.1.1.3). Significant undersea cable infrastructure is also present 

along the Atlantic Coast.

BOEM would require site-specific information regarding potential archaeological resources and 

sensitive benthic communities (including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral communities, and 

chemosynthetic communities), and cable infrastructure prior to approving any G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM 

would use this information to ensure that there are no physical impacts to archaeological resources and 

other sea bottom obstructions. Therefore, impacts to known sea bottom obstructions would be negligible. 

In the event that bottom-founded G&G activities (such as 4D seismic airgun surveys and intrusive 

boring) are conducted in an area containing no previously known archaeological resources or sensitive 

benthic communities and such obstructions are discovered during operations, operations would be 

suspended immediately. If it is determined that a potential shipwreck or prehistoric site has been located, 

the operator must halt operations and take the necessary steps to ensure that the site is not disturbed 

further. BOEM must also be notified within 48 hr of the discovery.

4.2.12.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

An accidental event could result in release of diesel fuel by a survey vessel. Based on USCG spill 

statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a diesel spill ranging from 

1.2 to 7.1 bbl. Spills occurring at the ocean surface would disperse and weather. Volatile components of 
4-214 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

the fuel would evaporate. Fuel and diesel used for operation of survey vessels is light and would float on 

the water surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of the heavier fuel components to adhere 

to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and sink. Particulate matter contaminated 

with diesel fuel could eventually reach the benthos either within or outside the AOI, depending upon spill 

location, water depth, ambient currents, and sinking rate. However, given the relatively small size of the 

spill and the loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and dispersion, a small diesel fuel spill at the 

surface would have no effect on benthic communities. As described in Chapter 3.5.2.1, the risk of 

accidental fuel spills is expected to be remote. The impacts would depend on the size and location of the 

spill, in addition to the meteorological conditions at the time. If a small diesel spill were to occur, it 

would have negligible impact on other marine uses, since it would only prohibit full use of a small area 

by other marine users for a very limited amount of time.

4.2.12.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The potential IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to 

affect other marine uses include (1) vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones, (2) seafloor disturbance, 

(3) presence of structures, and (4) a risk of a crude oil spill from a well blowout or accidental releases of 

fuel or other hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental events or low-probability, large-scale 

catastrophic events). 

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, all four sources of potential 

impact to other marine uses have been identified in association with proposed G&G activities. However, 

the activities included in other marine uses include 8 of the 10 activities included in the cumulative 

scenario: (1) oil and gas development; (2) marine minerals use; (3) renewable energy development; 

(4) commercial and recreational fishing; (5) military range complexes and civilian space program use; 

(6) shipping and marine transportation; (7) dredged material disposal; and (8) new cable infrastructure. 

Under Alternative A, IPFs identified for other marine uses included (1) vessel traffic; (2) vessel exclusion 

zones; (3) aircraft traffic and noise; (4) seafloor disturbance; and (5) accidental fuel spills, as presented in 

Chapters 4.2.12.2 and 4.2.12.3. Based on the prior impact analysis, it was determined that activities 

projected to occur under Alternative A would result in negligible or minor impacts to other marine uses, 

depending on the IPF. Only geosequestration and LNG terminals were not addressed previously under 

other marine uses; these two cumulative activities are expected to be very limited in spatial extent. The 

cumulative analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically 

with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact.

Vessel Traffic and Vessel Exclusion Zones

Vessel traffic would increase under the cumulative scenario to support most of the activities. 

Commercial vessels can range across the entire OCS, but higher traffic areas are generally self-restricted 

to transit corridors (Figure 4-36). Recent trends for increases in marine transportation and shipping 

levels at U.S. east coast ports are expected to continue, and overall vessel traffic volume within the AOI 

would increase during the period of interest. Impacts to other marine uses from the cumulative scenario 

are expected to range from negligible to minor, with the highest impact level expected in the vicinity of 

U.S. east coast ports where the majority of commercial vessel visits are documented.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, the G&G vessel activity levels expected under BOEM’s three 

program areas would not be sufficient to impact navigation, port capacity, or shipping and marine 

transportation; impacts were determined to be negligible to minor. Elevated impact levels could result 

from increased vessel traffic if several G&G investigations were conducted simultaneously. This effect 

would be most acute if smaller ports were used. Vessel operations must follow USCG vessel regulations 

and standards that include the use of vessel traffic schemes, other navigation tools, and observing vessel 

exclusion zones (Figure 4-36). Additional vessel traffic from proposed G&G operations would not 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-215

represent a significant increase to existing vessel traffic from cumulative activities and operations within 

the AOI. In addition, G&G vessel traffic occurring under the cumulative action scenario would be 

transiting to and from offshore locations (i.e., support vessels; short duration survey activity) or would be 

operating offshore (i.e., extended seismic airgun surveys). Therefore, G&G activities would produce only 

a negligible incremental increase in impacts to other marine uses under the cumulative scenario.

Military range complexes and civilian space program use areas already restrict a number of activities 

on a spatial and/or temporal basis. The Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas include all or parts of 

five major DoD range complexes and NASA’s WFF downrange hazard area (Figure 4-37). Under the 

proposed action, additional vessel exclusion zones would occur; however, these zones would be 

temporary (i.e., duration of activity) and may be either transitory (i.e., moving with a survey vessel) or 

fixed (e.g., surrounding a drilling operation). Vessel traffic within military range complexes and civilian 

space program use areas would also increase. Increased vessel traffic and the establishment of vessel 

exclusion zones caused by the proposed action would result in negligible incremental increases in impacts 

to military range complexes and civilian space program uses. 

Under the cumulative activities scenario, oil and gas exploration, renewable energy, geosequestration, 

and LNG terminals all potentially may include the presence of structures within the AOI. These 

additional structures would add to the exclusion areas already required by the proposed action. Marine 

space-use issues are an important element in marine spatial planning (Crowder and Norse, 2008; Douvere 

and Ehler, 2009). However, all vessel operations must adhere to USCG regulations and other vessel 

operations requirements, which include the avoidance of structures. Marine space conflicts would have to 

be evaluated prior to structure placements. Based on the activities anticipated in the time period 

evaluated in the Programmatic EIS, impacts are expected at a few locations. Therefore, only negligible 

incremental increases to impacts to other marine uses are expected from G&G activities.

Cumulative impacts would also result if multiple G&G activities were occurring simultaneously 

within close proximity of each other. Vessel exclusion zones established for multiple projects could 

result in a larger cumulative area excluded and may result in a longer time period where other marine uses 

are prohibited from certain areas. This type of cumulative impact could be most acute where vessel 

exclusion zones and an increase in vessel traffic occur in the approach to a commercial harbor. For each 

G&G investigation, planning should include review of scheduled activities within a given area. However, 

the level of increased vessel traffic would not increase significantly with the cumulative action scenario; 

therefore, only minor incremental increases in impacts to other marine uses are expected from vessel 

exclusion zones associated with G&G activities.

Aircraft Traffic and Noise

Aircraft traffic adjacent to and within the AOI would increase in association with G&G activities. All 

aircraft flights would originate from existing shore-based facilities. Flights would not interfere with 

normal commercial traffic. The number of G&G-related flights is not expected to be large enough to add 

stress to the air traffic control system. As noted in Chapter 4.2.12.2, aircraft traffic and noise resulting 

from G&G activities would have no effect on most of the other marine uses, including shipping and 

marine transportation, sand and gravel mining, renewable energy development, oil and gas exploration, 

dredged material disposal, research activities from bottom-founded structures, and known sea bottom 

obstructions. The G&G-related aircraft traffic does, however, have the potential to interfere with military 

aircraft operations associated with existing military range complexes.

Aircraft traffic levels and the duration of airborne surveys associated with G&G activities are very 

limited both in terms of survey area and duration. Potential impacts of G&G activities on military range 

complexes and civilian space program use area was determined to be negligible and avoidable when 

coordinated with DoD and NASA prior to commencement. The incremental increase in aircraft traffic

and noise expected under Alternative A would produce a negligible incremental increase in total aircraft 

activity and associated impacts expected under the cumulative scenario.

Seafloor Disturbance

Several activities under the cumulative scenario would include seafloor disturbance, including oil and 

gas development, marine minerals use, renewable energy development, geosequestration, LNG terminals, 

commercial fishing, dredged material disposal, and new cable infrastructure. As discussed in 
4-216 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Chapter 4.2.12.2, several proposed action activities could cause seafloor disturbance, including 

geological and geochemical sampling, placement and removal of equipment on the seafloor, and the 

installation of COST and shallow test wells, and the impacts were determined to be negligible. 

One of the biggest issues with the cumulative scenario activities is additional seafloor disturbance 

from appurtenances (e.g., drilling rigs, bottom-founded meteorological buoys, wind turbines, cables, and 

LNG terminals). The seafloor area that potentially would be impacted by the proposed action activities is 

extremely small when compared to the total area of the AOI (0.00025%). Further, seafloor disturbances 

as part of the level of activity or installations of additional appurtenances are not anticipated to be 

significant when compared to the entire AOI.

Commercial fishing activities under the cumulative activities scenario would result in seafloor 

disturbance. However, the level of activity in the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS for 

cumulative scenario activities is not anticipated to cause significant, extensive seafloor disturbance when 

compared to the entire AOI. Therefore, only negligible incremental increases in impacts from 

G&G-based seafloor disturbance are expected under the cumulative scenario.

Accidental Fuel Spills

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to other marine uses from the response activities would vary depending 

on the location and size of the spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the Atlantic 

OCS, impacts would be analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP submitted 

by an operator. Potential impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would be 

examined in the EA prior to any wells being drilled. In addition, a project-specific EA would require an 

analysis of site-specific information and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts from drilling 

activities and potential accidental crude oil spills. With the required mitigation measures in place and 

with oversight of these activities by the BSEE, an accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well is 

not anticipated; however, a spill still could occur. With these mitigation measures in place, the impacts to 

other marine uses from exploratory drilling operations are expected to be negligible. 

A sizeable amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario from non-G&G

activities during the period of interest, including high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping 

and marine transportation around ports along the U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and 

commercial and recreational fishing activity would also contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel 

movements are associated with a risk of collision and subsequent loss of fuel. The impacts of an 

accidental fuel spill arising from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario are expected to range 

from negligible to minor. 

Each G&G activity that involves survey vessels has the potential to result in an accidental fuel spill. 

A survey vessel colliding with another vessel or structure could result in a diesel fuel spill ranging from 

1.2 to 7.1 bbl (Chapter 3.5.2.1). The likelihood of such a spill is expected to be remote for the G&G 

activity scenario. Spilled diesel fuel would evaporate, disperse, and break down within a day, resulting in 

a negligible impact to other marine uses. Non-G&G activities at risk for spilled fuel include 

geosequestration, commercial and recreational fishing, military activity, and dredged material disposal. 

An accidental fuel spill associated with G&G activities would produce a negligible incremental increase 

in impacts under the cumulative scenario.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-217

4.2.13. Human Resources and Land Use

4.2.13.1. Description of the Affected Environment

This chapter describes the human and land resources in and around five selected ports: Port of 

Virginia (Norfolk, Virginia), Wilmington (North Carolina), Charleston (South Carolina), Savannah 

(Georgia), and Jacksonville (Florida). The ports were selected based on their geographic proximity to the 

AOI, locations named in permit applications for G&G activities, and the availability of adequate support 

facilities that could be used by survey vessels. Many smaller ports exist along the coast from Delaware to 

Florida that could be used as support bases for G&G activities associated with individual renewable 

energy or marine minerals projects. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of port selection.

4.2.13.1.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure

The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA state that the discussion of environmental 

consequences in an EIS should include possible conflicts between the proposed action and existing land 

use plans (40 CFR § 1502.16(c)) and proximity to areas with unique characteristics such as park lands and 

ecologically critical areas (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(3)). This chapter describes current land use and future 

land use plans for the selected ports and corresponding channels, harbors, and estuaries. Chapter 4.2.11

presents a complete listing of NWRs, parks, and other protected coastal areas.

The CZMA establishes that “each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that 

affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which 

is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State 

management programs” (16 U.S.C. § 1456 (c)), where “State management programs” refers to State 

CMPs approved by the Federal government. A detailed description of State Coastal Zone Management

Programs is included as Appendix B of this Programmatic EIS. 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S.C. §§ 4201-4209, 7 CFR part 658) requires 

Federal agencies to “identify and take into account the adverse effects of Federal programs on the 

preservation of farmland” (7 U.S.C. § 4202(b)). All five selected ports are located on developed land, in 

or adjacent to urban areas. Projects on land already in urban development are not subject to the FPPA 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011). Because of the small scale of onshore support 

operations for G&G activities, BOEM does not expect new facilities to be proposed on undeveloped rural 

lands, and no further consideration is given in this Programmatic EIS to lands subject to the FPPA.

The remainder of this chapter discusses land use and land use plans for the five ports.

All port terminals are situated in or adjacent to urban areas and are typically surrounded by residential 

and industrial zones. Harbors and channels leading to the sea typically contain a mix of residential, 

military, and undeveloped lands. Some channels cross or are adjacent to parks or wildlife refuges. In all 

ports, land use is dominated by berths, open and closed storage areas, facilities, and rail yards. The 

following paragraphs provide further details for each port.

Port of Virginia (Norfolk, Virginia)

The Port of Virginia has its largest terminal in Norfolk, with additional terminals in Portsmouth and 

Newport News (Virginia Port Authority, 2011). It is located at the mouth of the Hampton Roads natural 

harbor that opens to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The Port of Virginia terminals are located in an 

urban area with a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. There are also several small parks 

in the area. The mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, connecting the port terminals to the sea, is bordered to the 

south by urban beaches of the cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach. To the north and south there are 

several NWRs, including the Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, Fisherman Island NWR, Back Bay NWR, 

Mackay Island NWR, and Currituck NWR. The mouth of the harbor is over 3.2 km (2 mi) wide and 

borders urban residential areas in the cities of Hampton (to the north) and Norfolk (to the south).

The Virginia Port Authority Strategic Plan includes construction of a fourth terminal on Craney 

Island to accommodate port expansion. This expansion is deemed crucial to accommodate projected 

growth in import cargo in the long run (Virginia Port Authority, 2007).
4-218 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Wilmington, North Carolina 

The Port of Wilmington is located in New Hanover County, North Carolina, on the eastern banks of 

the Cape Fear River (North Carolina Ports, 2011). It is surrounded by industrial and residential areas of 

the City of Wilmington to the east and the Cape Fear River to the west (City of Wilmington, 2009). 

Across the river from the port is Eagle Island, most of it property of the COE, which manages a dredged 

material disposal facility there (U.S. Department of the Army [USDOA], COE, 2009). The port is 

connected to the sea by an approximately 42-km (26-mi) channel along the Cape Fear River. The lands to 

the west of the navigation channel are part of the County of Brunswick and are mostly undeveloped. 

They include the Brunswick Town State Historic Site, the Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal and, 

close to the mouth of the river, the city of Southport. The lands to the east of the navigation channel are 

part of New Hanover County and are also mostly undeveloped, with some intermixed residential areas, 

Carolina Beach State Park, and Fort Fischer State Recreation Area. At the mouth of the river is the small 

village of Bald Head Island.

The Port of Wilmington is currently conducting a feasibility study weighing options for upgrading 

and for making the port more accessible to increased traffic and larger vessels (North Carolina Ports, 

2011).

Charleston, South Carolina

The Port of Charleston consists of five terminals, four of them located on the western bank of the 

Cooper River and one on the eastern bank of the Wando River, all in Charleston County, South Carolina 

(South Carolina State Ports Authority, 2011). Land use around the port is a mix of industrial, 

commercial, and residential areas, with some undeveloped land along the Cooper and Wando River 

banks. The port terminals are located 8-16 km (5-10 mi) from the sea in a natural harbor along which 

there are several residential areas as well as the USS Yorktown State Park. The harbor leading to the sea 

is between 1.6 and 4.8 km (1 and 3 mi) wide, with residential piers, particularly on the north side. Most 

of the terminals face small undeveloped areas across the river.

A new container terminal is currently under construction at the Port of Charleston, with initial 

operations expected for 2018 (South Carolina State Ports Authority, 2011).

Savannah, Georgia

The Port of Savannah is located in Chatham County, Georgia, on the border with South Carolina. Its 

two terminals are on the west bank of the Savannah River, within the Savannah urban area (Georgia Ports 

Authority, 2012). Land use to the west of the port terminals is a mix of industrial and residential uses. 

To the east, the Savannah River waters are often no more than 275 m (900 ft) wide, with relatively 

undeveloped portions of Hutchinson Island and Kings Island on the opposite side. Part of the northern 

terminal faces the Savannah NWR. The Port is located approximately 24 km (15 mi) upstream from the 

mouth of the river. The banks along the river channel leading to the sea are mostly undeveloped and 

include recreational areas such as the McQueen’s Island Historic Trail, the Fort Pulaski National 

Monument, and the Tybee Island beaches at the mouth of the river. The Tybee NWR lies to the north of 

the river, in South Carolina. The Savannah historic district with its colonial buildings lies along the river 

banks to the south or the Port.

Several expansion projects are currently underway at the Port of Savannah aiming at more than 

doubling its throughout capacity by 2018 (Georgia Ports Authority, 2012).

Jacksonville, Florida 

The Port of Jacksonville has three cargo terminals and one cruise terminal within the city of 

Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida (Jacksonville Port Authority, 2011). One cargo terminal is located 

next to the urban core of the city on the west bank of the St. Johns River, about 29 km (18 mi) from the 

estuary. The terminal is adjacent to residential and industrial areas. Another cargo terminal is located on 

Blount Island, approximately 13 km (8 mi) from the estuary, adjacent to the U.S. Marine Corps Blount 

Island Command. It is flanked to the north and south by the St. Johns River. The third cargo terminal 

and the cruise terminal are located on the north bank of the St. Johns River, just upstream from Blount 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-219

Island, and are adjacent to mostly undeveloped lands. Approximately 10 km (6 mi) of the river channel 

and its banks, before it reaches its estuary, are part of the Timucuan Ecological and Historic National 

Preserve, the exceptions being a private and mostly residential area on Fanning Island and the Mayport 

Naval Station, on the southern tip of the estuary. There are light residential areas with piers at various 

parts of the channel to the sea, while other parts of the river banks are undeveloped and others contain 

military port and airport facilities.

The 2010 Jacksonville Port Authority Annual Report describes several projects currently underway to 

expand capacity and accommodate future growth, including improved infrastructure projects and 

increased container handling capacity (Jacksonville Port Authority, 2011).

4.2.13.1.2. Demographics

For the purpose of analyzing human resources, it is useful to look at the Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs) in which each port is located. The MSAs are counties or groups of counties where commuting 

ties around an urbanized area of 50,000 people or more indicate the existence of strong social and 

economic integration. They are defined and revised by the Office of Management and Budget on a 

regular basis. Each of the five ports is part of an MSA.

The Port of Virginia is located in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA. This is a 

relatively large area including communities on both sides of the Hampton Roads Harbor, seven counties, 

and nine cities, including the cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Newport News, and 

Hampton. The Port of Wilmington is part of the Wilmington MSA, an area that includes the counties of 

New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender. The Port of Charleston is part of the Charleston-North 

Charleston-Summerville MSA, which consists of the counties of Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester. 

The Port of Savannah is located within the Savannah MSA, which consists of Chatham, Bryan, and 

Effingham counties. The Port of Jacksonville is part of the Jacksonville MSA, formed by the counties of 

Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns (Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 

Budget, 2009).

Table 4-38 shows population and population growth in the last decade in the MSAs of each port. 

Wilmington was the least populous MSA in 2000 but grew at a fast pace during the last decade and is 

now more populous than Savannah. The Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA, where the Port of 

Virginia is located, has the most population, but it is the area that grew the least among the five MSAs in 

the last decade.

4.2.13.1.3. Economic Factors

Table 4-39 shows the GDP for the MSAs of each port. There is considerable difference in the size of 

the economy of each of these areas, with the largest economy (Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News 

MSA) being approximately six times larger than the smallest (Savannah). The Virginia 

Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA is also the area with largest per capita GDP growth between 2001 

and 2009. Despite the economic recession, Wilmington’s population has grown by 55 percent between 

2000 and 2010, which includes an almost doubling of the Hispanic population.

Table 4-40 shows the labor force and 2011 unemployment for the five MSAs. The unemployment 

rate is currently lowest in those areas that enjoyed highest per capita GDP growth in the past years: the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA and the Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville MSA.

The five ports are important contributors to their local economies, creating jobs, facilitating trade, and 

attracting businesses. A study done for the Virginia Port Authority estimated that the Port of Virginia 

supported 343,001 total jobs in fiscal year 2006 (Virginia Port Authority, 2008). A study commissioned 

by the North Carolina State Ports Authority Board of Directors estimates that 61,800 jobs are supported 

annually by the Port of Wilmington (North Carolina State University, 2011). A study for the South 

Carolina State Ports Authority estimates that the Port of Charleston affects an estimated 260,800 jobs 

across the state (Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc., 2008). The Georgia Ports Authority estimates the impact

of its ports (Savannah and Brunswick) to be 295,443 annual jobs (Georgia Ports Authority, 2010). The 

Jacksonville Port Authority estimates a contribution of 65,000 jobs a year (Jacksonville Port Authority, 

2010). These estimates typically include not only jobs generated directly by the Ports, but also by port 

clients and suppliers and jobs induced by local consumption of port and client employees.
4-220 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2.13.1.4. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Register, 1994a) requires Federal agencies to take appropriate steps 

to identify and avoid disproportionately high and adverse effects of Federal actions on the health and 

surrounding environment of minority and low-income populations. The CEQ guidance for 

implementation of EO 12898 in the context of NEPA (CEQ, 1997b) identifies a minority population as an 

affected area where more than 50 percent of the population belongs to a minority group or where the 

percentage presence of minority groups is meaningfully greater than in the general population.

Table 4-41 shows the share of the population belonging to a minority group in 2010 in the five states 

and MSAs in which the ports are located. In the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA, the 

Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville MSA, and the Savannah MSA, African Americans represent a 

share of the local population that is over twice the share that African Americans represent in the U.S. as a 

whole. In these MSAs, African Americans represent between 27 and 34 percent of the total population. 

For the purposes of this Programmatic EIS, BOEM considers the African American presence in these 

three MSAs to be meaningfully greater than in the country as a whole.

Table 4-42 shows the presence of low-income populations in the same MSAs. The presence of 

low-income populations is slightly higher in the MSAs of Wilmington and Charleston-North 

Charleston-Summerville than in the rest of the country. BOEM does not consider this difference to be 

meaningful for purposes of environmental justice analysis in this Programmatic EIS. 

Fishing communities in the affected area are of particular interest because they are often low-income 

communities. The NMFS notes that fishing communities in the Mid-Atlantic region have faced pollution 

from agriculture and urban expansion and that the commercial fishery production in one of the nation’s 

traditionally most productive areas, the Chesapeake Bay, is in decline (USDOC, NMFS, 2009c). The 

same report notes how fishing communities in both the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions have 

suffered from the loss of fishing infrastructure to alternate uses and a process of gentrification, the influx 

of wealthy people creating increased pressure on the traditional livelihood of poorer communities, 

typically through increased costs of living and property prices (USDOC, NMFS, 2009c). Commercial 

fisheries are more fully discussed in Chapter 4.2.7. The USDOC, NMFS (2009c) has assembled fishing 

community profiles by state and includes information on minority presence and low-income presence 

based on the 2000 census.

Table 4-43 shows the share of the population in identified fishing communities belonging to a 

minority group in 2000. The communities included were those for all seven states along the Mid- and 

South Atlantic Coasts from Delaware to Florida. The minority percentage in those communities is 

comparable to or lower than minority percentage in the general population, with the possible exception of 

Native Americans in South Carolina fishing communities, although it still represents a small share (4.1%) 

of the total fishing community population.

Table 4-44 shows information for poverty rates in fishing communities of the Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Coasts. Rates vary considerably among communities and indicate that fishing communities of 

the affected area, when taken as a whole, are not necessarily low-income communities (Table 4-44). 

However, individual fishing communities may present a meaningfully greater share of households in 

poverty when compared to the rest of their corresponding state, and therefore individual fishing 

communities could constitute low-income populations for the purpose of analyses of environmental 

justice impacts. Because identification of individual low-income fishing communities would not affect 

the environmental justice impact analysis at the programmatic level and would be relevant only in 

reviewing the potential impact of site-specific projects, no further detail is provided in this Programmatic 

EIS. Environmental reviews of site-specific projects would be expected to identify individual lowincome fishing communities and assess any disproportionate human health and environmental effects that 

these communities could face.

4.2.13.2. Impacts of Routine Activities

This chapter discusses the potential impacts of routine activities associated with Alternative A on 

human resources and land use onshore of the AOI. As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1, through preliminary 

screening of the activities and affected resources, IPFs for human resources and land use include potential 

effects of onshore support activities (Table 4-2). The factors associated with G&G activities assessed in 

this chapter for their potential socioeconomic and land use impacts are restricted to those aspects on 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-221

shore. Offshore factors such as vessel exclusion zones and noise impacts on fish catchability could also 

potentially result in impacts to human resources (e.g., recreational resources; commercial fishing) but are

analyzed in other chapters of this document. Assessment of potential impacts on minority and 

low-income populations includes all impacts to human resources, whether derived from onshore or 

offshore activities. Onshore routine activities associated with G&G activities consist of the use of shore 

bases for deployment, support, and debarkation of vessels and the employment of personnel for work on 

each survey.

4.2.13.2.1. Significance Criteria

Negligible impacts to human resources and land use would include those where little to no 

measurable impacts are observed or expected, and there would be no disproportionately adverse human 

health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

Minor impacts to human resources and land use would include those that are detectable but are 

neither severe nor extensive. Minor impacts would include limited, localized, and short-term disruption 

to onshore support facilities and the local community; a low level of disproportionate impact to minority 

or low-income populations present in shore base communities; or minimal adverse human health and 

environmental effects.

Moderate impacts to human resources and land use would be detectable and would be either extensive 

but not severe or localized and severe. Moderate impacts would include localized and severe 

(or extensive but not severe) disruption to onshore support facilities and the local community; a 

disproportionate impact to minority or low-income populations present in shore base communities; or 

visible adverse human health and environmental effects.

Major impacts to human resources and land use would be detectable, and would be long-lasting, 

extensive, and severe. Major impacts would include extensive and severe disruption to onshore support 

facilities and the local community; a high level of disproportionate impact to minority or low-income 

populations present in shore base communities; or significant adverse human health and environmental 

effects.

4.2.13.2.2. Evaluation

Survey vessels for nearshore non-airgun HRG projects are expected to make daily round trips to their 

shore base, whereas the larger seismic vessels can remain offshore for weeks or months.

Oil and gas seismic airgun surveys represent over 90,000 hr (3,725 days) of vessel activity during the 

2012-2020 time period (Chapter 3.5.1.3). In addition, non-airgun HRG surveys in support of oil and gas 

exploration represent over 21,000 hr (872 days) of vessel activity during the 2013-2020 time period. 

Non-airgun HRG surveys are typically conducted simultaneous with the airgun surveys; however, there 

may be times when they are conducted separately. Survey vessels for both types of surveys are likely to 

remain offshore for most of the survey duration, with supply vessel support originating from ports along 

the Atlantic Coast. For this analysis, five potential support bases were identified in support of oil and gas 

program seismic survey activity – Norfolk, Virginia; Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South 

Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida.

Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy would operate mainly at specific 

sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential 

cable routes to shore. Typically, the vessel would return to its shore base daily. High-resolution 

geophysical survey vessels are expected to require 4,255 days and the same number of vessel round trips; 

additionally, the renewable energy scenario includes 3,106-9,969 geotechnical sampling locations, 

requiring approximately 3,106-9,969 vessel round trips Chapter 3.5.1.3. Vessel trips associated with 

renewable energy areas would be divided among several existing ports in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Depending on the location of the renewable 

energy area, the surveys could operate from one of the five larger ports in the AOI – Norfolk, 

Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, or Jacksonville, or any of numerous smaller ports along the coast,

depending on whatever is convenient.

For marine minerals survey activity, HRG surveys of sand source areas are likely to focus on 

prospective borrow sites (3-10 km2 [714-2,471 ac]) or reconnaissance areas (on the order of one to three

OCS blocks), and each survey is assumed to require 1-5 operational days for completion, with an 
4-222 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

estimated 180 vessel round trips. Vessels are assumed to operate on site during daylight hours and return 

to the shore base at the end of each day. There would be approximately 93-615 vessel round trips 

associated with marine minerals survey activity, with vessel traffic divided among several existing ports 

in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida, exclusive of Georgia. 

Depending on the location of the renewable energy area, the surveys could operate from one of the larger 

ports – Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, or Jacksonville – or any of numerous smaller ports 

along the coast, depending on whatever is convenient.

Onshore Support Activities

The use of existing ports and their associated shore bases is expected to have no or negligible land use

conflicts with current land uses and land use plans. Shore bases would require the use of berthing space 

at existing ports. Because vessels would be expected to be between 20 and 100 m (66 and 328 ft) in 

length, they would require modest berthing space. All five major ports described previously can regularly 

accommodate much larger cargo vessels, and all have expansion plans in place. The larger survey vessels 

used for oil and gas seismic exploration could spend up to a year at sea; during surveys, crew changes and 

replenishment of supplies would be conducted on a regular basis using smaller service vessels. Larger 

seismic vessels may visit a shore base periodically (e.g., for repairs and equipment replacement that 

cannot be done at sea). Assuming a single visit every 30 days, a total of 125 port visits would occur 

based on the estimate of about 3,750 days of seismic survey vessel activity, as indicated in 

Chapter 3.5.1.3. 

Smaller vessels used for renewable energy and marine minerals surveys and sampling would typically 

return to their shore bases daily, averaging less than 4 trips/day over the 10-year period and divided 

among ports in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. In 

2010, there were 12,446 calls by ocean-going vessels (larger ships typically over 400 ft [122 m]) at U.S. 

Ports between Virginia and Florida, or approximately 34 calls per day (USDOT, Maritime Administration

[MARAD], 2011b). The increase in G&G-related traffic volume along the channels connecting ports to 

sea is expected to be insufficient to adversely affect the current use of such channels by commercial 

vessels. To the extent that specific projects include greater use of onshore bases and port channels, they 

would be subject to site-specific environmental reviews.

Larger seismic vessels (100 m; 328 ft) typically accommodate a crew of approximately 40 people, 

including survey engineers, technicians, and mariners. As described in Chapter 3.5.1.10, BOEM expects 

little or no local employment would be directly generated by G&G survey activity because of the 

specialized expertise required for these surveys. Survey crews aboard larger survey vessels would be 

expected to embark and disembark at shore bases about 125 times during the 2012-2020 time period, with 

associated purchases within those metropolitan areas around shore bases.

Much smaller crews, ranging from 10 to 20 people, would be required for renewable energy or 

marine minerals surveys or sampling activities involving smaller vessels. The current number of portrelated jobs for the five major ports of the region range from 65,000 to more than 343,000 

Chapter 4.2.13.1.3, further supporting the determination that local employment would not be affected by 

G&G survey crew demands. Because of the small number of workers directly employed in these surveys 

and the distribution of onshore support among several ports, the impact on local economies of increased 

expenditures associated with the use of shore bases, although positive, would be negligible. Given the 

size of the metropolitan areas surrounding the ports described in Chapter 4.2.13.1, supplies obtained 

locally to support the larger survey events would also be expected to have positive but negligible effects 

on the local economies surrounding shore base areas.

The potential for disproportionately high, adverse human health and environmental effects to 

environmental justice populations depends on the local presence of minority or low-income populations 

and the nature of the onshore activities resulting from G&G operations. Chapter 4.2.13.1 identified 

potential environmental justice populations in the onshore area bordering the AOI, including 

African-American communities in the metropolitan areas around the Ports of Virginia, Charleston, and 

Savannah and low-income fishing communities distributed throughout the affected area. Because only 

negligible to minor impacts were identified on human resources, commercial fisheries (Chapter 4.2.7), 

and recreational resources (Chapter 4.2.9), no high and adverse human health and environmental effects 

would be expected on environmental justice populations, including African-American communities and 

low-income fishing communities. Site-specific environmental reviews would be expected to identify the 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-223

specific minority and low-income populations in their affected areas and analyze the existence of 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from project-specific 

activities. Based on the projected level of G&G survey activity and associated demands for shore base 

space, supplies, and services, impacts from onshore activities on human resources and land use are 

expected to be negligible.

4.2.13.3. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Based on USCG spill statistics, a spill scenario was developed in Chapter 3.5.2.1 that assumes a 

diesel spill ranging from 1.2 to 7.1 bbl (see Chapter 3.5.2). Because the incremental use of onshore 

bases would be small relative to the current utilization of these bases and other port facilities, the risk of 

damage or harm would not exceed current risk at shore base locations. In addition, any damage and harm 

done would be small relative to the size of local economies and populations. The accidental fuel spill of 

diesel (1.2-7.1 bbl) would be addressed via use of vessel and local spill response capabilities. An 

accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to have minimal to no impact to either the local economies

or populations of ports and surrounding communities. Based on the accidental diesel fuel release 

scenario, impacts on human resources and land use are expected to be negligible. 

As outlined in Chapter 4.2.13.2, the impacts of accidental events on minority and low-income 

populations require identification of site-specific projects. Because impacts are dependent upon project 

scope and location, they cannot be analyzed at the programmatic level but would be considered in 

project-specific EAs.

4.2.13.4. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that have the potential to affect 

human resources and land use include (1) potential effects of onshore support activities; and 

(2) accidental releases (smaller accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic events). The 

factors associated with G&G activities assessed in this chapter for their potential socioeconomic and land 

use impacts are restricted to those aspects on shore.

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.13.2 and 4.2.13.3, including analysis of (1) onshore 

support activities and (2) accidental fuel spills, determined that activities projected to occur under 

Alternative A would result in negligible impacts to human resources. The following analysis considers 

whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically with other impact sources 

from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact.

Onshore Support Activities

Within the cumulative activities scenario, the use of existing ports and their associated shore bases by 

G&G survey support vessels has the potential to impact human resources, land uses, and land use plans. 

The vessels supporting G&G surveys fall into two categories: smaller vessels used for renewable energy

and marine minerals surveys, and larger survey vessels used for oil and gas seismic exploration. The 

smaller vessels would typically return to their shore bases daily, while the larger survey vessels could 

spend up to a year at sea. As discussed in Chapter 3 for the renewable energy program, there would be 

approximately 3,106-9,969 vessel round trips within the AOI over the period 2012-2020. There would be 

approximately 93-615 vessel round trips associated with marine minerals survey activity. A total of 

125 port visits by survey vessels for the oil and gas seismic exploration program would occur during the 

surveying period. The berthing space requirements for all of these vessels should not tax berthing 

capabilities of the ports anticipated to be used (Chapter 4.2.13.1) for these operations since they are 

equipped for handling large vessels.
4-224 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

All five major ports adjacent to the AOI regularly accommodate much larger cargo vessels, and all 

have expansion plans in place (Chapter 4.2.13.1). The current number of port-related jobs for these ports 

range from 65,000 to more than 343,000 (Chapter 4.2.13.1) and would not be affected by G&G survey 

crew demands.

Because land use and socioeconomic impacts from G&G activities would be negligible, there would 

be a negligible contribution to cumulative impacts or other simultaneous activities in the proximity of the 

shore bases. As outlined in Chapter 4.2.13.2, cumulative impacts on minority and low-income 

populations require identification of site-specific projects, and further discussion of such impacts is left 

for project-specific environmental reviews.

Accidental Fuel Spills

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including 

high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing activity would also 

contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and 

subsequent loss of fuel. The risk of accidental fuel spills arising from a vessel collision under the 

cumulative scenario is expected to range from negligible to minor. 

The likelihood of a fuel spill during seismic airgun surveys or other G&G activities is considered to 

be remote, and the associated impacts are expected to be negligible (Chapter 4.2.13.3). Given the size of 

the potential spill, a large-scale spill response involving multiple vessels is not expected. The impacts to 

local economies or populations of the ports and surrounding communities from spill response and cleanup 

activities under the cumulative activities scenario are expected to range from negligible to minor

Chapter 3.6.1 outlined the oil and gas exploration activities that could reasonably be expected to 

occur between 2018 and 2020, the end of the time period analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. These 

activities would include prelease and postlease G&G surveys and the possible drilling of one to three 

exploration wells. However, it is highly unlikely that exploration wells would be drilled within the time 

period of the Programmatic EIS given the steps required by the OCSLA and NEPA and the length of time 

these steps are likely to take in a frontier area, based on BOEM’s previous experience. If one or more 

exploratory wells are not drilled, the probability of a release of crude oil from an accidental well blowout 

is zero. In the event one or more exploratory wells are drilled and the remote probability of a blowout is 

realized, the severity of impacts to human resources and land use from the response activities would 

depend on the location and size of the spill. However, before exploration drilling could occur in the 

Atlantic OCS, impacts would be analyzed in a lease sale EIS, and an EA would be prepared for any EP 

submitted by an operator. Potential impacts from an accidental crude oil spill from a well blowout would 

be examined in the EA prior to any wells being drilled. In addition, a project-specific EA would require 

an analysis of site-specific information and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts from drilling 

activities and potential accidental crude oil spills. An accidental crude oil spill from an exploratory well 

is not anticipated with the required mitigation measures in place and with oversight of these activities by 

the BSEE; however, a spill potentially still could occur. With these mitigation measures in place, the 

impacts to human resources and land use from exploratory drilling operations are expected to be 

negligible. 

4.3. ALTERNATIVE B – THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH ADDITIONAL MITIGATION

As described in Chapter 2.2, Alternative B would allow BOEM to authorize G&G activities in 

support of all program areas – oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals – throughout the entire 

AOI. It would include the same regulatory requirements and mitigation measures as Alternative A, but it 

would include additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles; establish a 40-km (25-mi) 

separation distance between simultaneously operating deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and 

require the use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. It is anticipated that through the 

adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that the separation distance may be modified 

based on newly available information and in consideration of any other surveys requested or authorized to 

operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some circumstances, airgun noise can be 

detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet

it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on marine mammals or other marine 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-225

species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and 

environmental analyses level as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not apply 

this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider any 

potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

4.3.1. Benthic Communities

Descriptions of the benthic communities present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.1.1. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, IPFs for benthic communities include (1) active acoustic sound sources 

(e.g., airgun noise); (2) trash and debris; (3) seafloor disturbance; and (4) drilling discharges (Table 4-2). 

Impacts to benthic communities under Alternative B would be very similar to those previously described 

for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.1.2). The following discussion outlines the effects of the additional 

mitigation measures included in Alternative B on benthic communities.

4.3.1.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.1.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not change the extent, 

severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance or drilling discharge impacts. Benthic impacts of trash and 

debris are expected to be avoided through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and 

BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts from seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and trash and debris 

would be unchanged under Alternative B (i.e., negligible or minor, depending upon the IPF).

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on benthic 

communities are expected to be negligible. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas 

would not alter the impacts of seismic airgun surveys on benthic communities.

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, DMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure 

area would be performed in accordance to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes

additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. 

Implementation of the HRG Survey Protocol could result in altered timing of G&G surveys depending on 

the frequency of the HRG source used but would not be expected to change the extent or severity of 

benthic impacts, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.1.2 as negligible or minor, depending upon the IPF.

4.3.1.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area would 

be implemented in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol presented in Chapter 2.1.3.2, which 

includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, applicable routine IPFs for benthic communities are active acoustic

sound sources, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and trash and debris. The additional time-area 

closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would not change the extent, severity, or timing of 

seafloor disturbance or drilling discharge impacts. Benthic impacts of trash and debris are expected to be 

avoided through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, 
4-226 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

impacts from seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and trash and debris would be unchanged under 

Alternative B (i.e., negligible or minor, depending upon the IPF).

The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the closure area 

offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, 

impacts of active acoustic sound sources on benthic communities are expected to be negligible. A change 

in survey timing in the closure area would not alter the impacts of seismic airgun surveys on benthic 

communities.

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, other non-airgun HRG surveys in the closure area 

would be implemented in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol presented in Chapter 2.1.3.2, which 

includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles. 

Implementation of the HRG Survey Protocol could result in altered timing of some G&G surveys

depending on the frequency of the HRG source used but would not be expected to change the extent or 

severity of benthic impacts, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.1.2 as negligible or minor, depending 

upon the IPF.

4.3.1.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on 

marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and 

environmental analyses level as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not apply 

this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider any 

potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, applicable routine IPFs for benthic communities are active acoustic

sound sources, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and trash and debris. Limits on concurrent 

seismic airgun surveys would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance or drilling 

discharge impacts. Benthic impacts of trash and debris are expected to be avoided through required 

compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts from seafloor 

disturbance, drilling discharges, and trash and debris would be unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic 

airgun surveys (i.e., negligible or minor, depending upon IPF).

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of seismic 

airgun surveys in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance and would depend on the 

schedule and planned coverage of individual surveys. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, impacts of active 

acoustic sound sources on benthic communities are expected to be negligible. A change in survey timing 

because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the active acoustic sound impacts 

on benthic communities.

4.3.1.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM to improve detection of vocalizing marine mammals 

in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. In addition, if BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if 

operations continue during periods of reduced visibility, for non-airgun HRG surveys using sources at or 

below 200 kHz, additional effective monitoring technologies, which could include PAM, would be 

required. The use of PAM or other monitoring technologies would not change any benthic community 

impacts analyzed in Chapter 4.2.1.2. 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-227

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources impacts would remain unchanged from Alternative A and would be negligible, (2) trash and 

debris – impacts would remain unchanged and would be negligible, (3) seafloor disturbance – impacts 

would remain unchanged and would be negligible to minor, and (4) drilling discharges – impacts would 

remain unchanged and would be negligible. 

4.3.1.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on benthic communities would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.1.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at 

the sea surface would be unlikely to have any effect on benthic communities. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from non-airgun HRG survey 

vessels could occur during the closure period if surveys were authorized based on the frequency of the 

proposed HRG survey equipment. A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic 

airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small 

fuel spill and the potential impacts on benthic communities would be the same as under Alternative A and 

would be negligible. 

4.3.1.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts ranging from negligible to minor to benthic 

communities, depending on the activity, as a result of active acoustic sound sources, seafloor disturbance, 

drilling discharges, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. These IPFs would also contribute to the 

cumulative activities scenario under Alternative B. The cumulative activities scenario for benthic 

communities, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.1.4, includes (1) oil and gas development, (2) renewable energy

development, (3) marine minerals use, (4) geosequestration, (5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and 

recreational fishing, (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use, (8) shipping and marine 

transportation, (9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified only negligible incremental 

increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Overall, however, these 

time-area closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. 

Only minor incremental increases in ambient noise levels would occur as a result of G&G activities; 

however, the localized noise impacts within the time-area closure zones would be eliminated under 

Alternative B. Additional time-area closures would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor 

disturbance or drilling discharge impacts under Alternative B and therefore would not affect the 

cumulative impacts identified under Alternative A. Benthic impacts of trash and debris are expected to be 

avoided through required compliance with existing regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts 

would be unchanged under the cumulative scenario for Alternative B. 

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in 

certain areas, but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on 

benthic communities. In addition, these concurrent survey limits would not change the extent, severity, or 

timing of seafloor disturbance or drilling discharge impacts. Benthic impacts of trash and debris are 

expected to be avoided through required compliance with existing regulations and BSEE guidance. 

Cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any benthic community cumulative impacts

determined under Alternative A. 
4-228 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Spills from non-airgun HRG survey vessels 

could also occur during the closure period if surveys were authorized based on the frequency of the 

proposed HRG survey equipment. A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic 

airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small 

fuel spill and the potential cumulative impacts on benthic communities would be the same under 

Alternative B as determined under Alternative A. 

4.3.2. Marine Mammals

Descriptions of the marine mammals present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.2.1. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.2.2 and highlighted in Table 4-2, the IPFs from routine activities that may 

impact marine mammals within the AOI include (1) active acoustic sound sources (i.e., airguns; 

electromechanical sources including subbottom profilers, multibeam depth sounders, and side-scan 

sonars); (2) vessel and equipment noise (from survey and support vessels and aircraft); (3) vessel traffic

(i.e., physical disturbance to and risk of collisions with marine mammals); (4) aircraft traffic and noise; 

and (5) trash and debris (i.e., potential for entanglement and ingestion). The types of impacts to marine 

mammals under Alternative B would be very similar to those described for Alternative A

(Chapter 4.2.2.2). Adaptive management strategies (i.e., impact mitigation measures) under 

Alternative B are discussed in Chapter 2.7.8. The following discussion outlines the effects of additional 

mitigation measures included in Alternative B on marine mammals.

4.3.2.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.2.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, time-area closures of SMAs for NARWs described under Alternative A would 

be expanded to a continuous 37-km (20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern 

limit of the AOI. The expanded closure area would add 6,334,605 ac (25,635 km2

) to the SMA closure 

areas described under Alternative A, totaling 13,925,160 ac (56,353 km2

), representing 6.6 percent of the 

total AOI. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional closure areas offshore 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 and April 30, or in the additional 

closure area offshore Florida between November 15 and April 15. The rationale for the expansion of 

these closure areas is to provide a continuous time-area closure for NARWs from active acoustic sound 

along their seasonal migratory route and within their critical habitat off Georgia and northeast Florida. 

Historical sightings of NARWs within their migratory corridor have occurred primarily within 37-km 

(20-nmi) of shore. However, these data also show that individual NARWs may also be distributed at 

much greater distances from shore (Knowlton et al., 2002). Additionally, seismic airgun surveys would 

not be allowed in active DMAs (Chapter 2.1.3.1). Seismic airgun surveys conducted outside of the 

protected areas (NARW critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs) would be required to remain at distances 

where received sound levels at the protected area boundaries do not exceed the Level B harassment

threshold. HRG non-airgun surveys are authorized year-round within the AOI, including the NARW

critical habitat from November 15 to April 15 and U.S. SMAs between November 1 and April 30, and a 

within DMAs, subject to HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2). These include operation restrictions 

within the NARW critical habitat and DMAs, establishment of a 200-m (656-ft) acoustic exclusion zone

for non-airgun HRG surveys operating at and below 200 kHz (non-airgun HRG surveys using sound 

sources at or below 30 kHz would need to be critical to program needs), visual monitoring of this acoustic 

exclusion zone by PSOs, and sound source shutdown requirements.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.2.2, applicable routine IPFs for marine mammals include active acoustic

sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, and trash and debris. 

In the analysis of potential impacts under Alternative A, impacts of most active acoustic sound sources on 

marine mammals are expected to range from minor to moderate. It is expected that expansion of the 

time-area closure would effectively reduce or eliminate active acoustic sound source related impacts to 

NARWs and several other marine mammal species, primarily bottlenose dolphins that may occur within 

the closure area during the specified time frame. It is anticipated that the time-area closure would also 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-229

reduce project-related vessel traffic within these areas, prompting a significant reduction in the likelihood 

of ship strike for NARWs, of particular importance to calving females and calves of the highly 

endangered NARW population. The time-area closure mitigation measure would not affect the overall 

level of impacts from active acoustic sound sources on marine mammal species, including NARWs 

outside of the closure area. Therefore, for this analysis, the expansion of the time-area closure of SMAs

or DMAs within the AOI would not be expected to reduce the anticipated level of impact from seismic

survey activities from moderate for most species. Although incidental take was not modeled for 

Alternative B, it is estimated that the expanded time-area closure would avoid approximately 80 percent 

of the incidental takes of NARWs over the period of the Programmatic EIS (as compared with no 

closures). In contrast, the Alternative A time-area closure would be expected to avoid about 67 percent of 

the NARW incidental takes. The estimate for Alternative B is based on the geographic and seasonal 

distribution of NARW densities used for modeling in Appendix E. Further, this time-area closure would 

also reduce take for other marine mammal stocks that occur with this 20-nmi (37-km) buffer zone.

Under the additional time-area closure, other non-airgun G&G surveys, are authorized within the 

AOI, although subject to the HRG Survey Protocol. This Protocol would not be expected to change the 

level of impacts to marine mammals within the AOI, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.2.2 as minor. 

Under the additional time-area closure, impacts from trash and debris and aircraft traffic and noise

would remain unchanged from Alternative A. 

4.3.2.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would also include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside of the 

hearing range of sea turtles (>1.6 kHz) would be allowed year-round in the closure area. If a DMA is 

established within the closure area, any HRG sound source operating at and below 30 kHz must be shut 

down within 24 hr of the time the DMA is established.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.2.2, applicable routine IPFs for marine mammals include active acoustic

sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, and trash and debris. 

In the analysis of potential impacts under Alternative A, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on 

marine mammals are expected to range from minor to moderate. The time-area closure for nesting sea 

turtles under Alternative B would reduce the extent, severity, and/or timing of potential active acoustic 

noise-related impacts to marine mammals (primarily bottlenose dolphins) within inner shelf waters off 

Brevard County. In addition, seismic survey vessels would not be expected to pass through these waters 

during the time-area closure, which would remove the potential for noise-related impacts or vessel 

collision impacts to marine mammals during these periods. Although this mitigation measure would 

reduce potential impact levels to mammals within this isolated area, this mitigation measure would not 

change the evaluation of potential impacts from active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and aircraft 

traffic to marine mammals within the remaining AOI. Impacts to marine mammals from discarded trash 

and debris are expected to be avoided through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations 

and BSEE guidance, and therefore impacts would be unchanged under Alternative B (negligible). 

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, HRG surveys using non-airgun sources in the 

closure area would be authorized but subject to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2). The 

implementation of this Protocol would not be expected to change the extent or severity of impacts to sea 

turtles, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.2.2 as negligible to minor. 

Under the additional time-area closure, impacts from trash and debris and aircraft traffic and noise

would remain unchanged from Alternative A. 

4.3.2.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

This measure was designed to mitigate possible effects of multiple anthropogenic underwater sounds 

from multiple seismic operations on marine mammals, including the effects of interacting and repeated 

sounds. It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that 

this separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of 
4-230 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

any other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in 

some circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across 

ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any 

effect on marine mammals or other marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this 

measure at the site-specific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information 

available at that time. BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These 

subsequent evaluations will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys 

(if any). As discussed in Chapter 4.2.2.2, applicable routine IPFs for marine mammals and sea turtles

include active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, 

and trash and debris. Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not significantly change the 

extent or severity of active acoustic sound impacts. The limits are intended to restrict these surveys to 

discrete areas at any given time, providing these resources with areas to avoid active acoustic sounds, 

survey-related vessel traffic and related noise, and aircraft traffic and noise. Impacts to these resources 

from trash and debris are expected to be avoided through required compliance with USCG and USEPA 

regulations and BSEE guidance, and therefore impacts would be unchanged by limits on concurrent 

seismic airgun surveys.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of seismic 

airgun surveys in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance but would depend on the 

schedule and planned coverage of individual surveys. As discussed in Chapters 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.3.2, 

impacts of active acoustic sound sources on marine mammals and sea turtles are expected to range from 

minor to moderate. Overall, a change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys would provide a practical means of avoidance of seismic survey-related noise for all marine 

mammal and sea turtle species (motile subadults and adults) and would further reduce potential injurious 

(Level A harassment) impacts. The mitigation measure is not likely to alter the overall level of 

non-injurious impacts, such as disruption of behavior (e.g., avoidance) of these resources within the AOI.

Under the additional time-area closure, impacts from trash and debris and aircraft traffic and noise

would remain unchanged from Alternative A. 

4.3.2.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol throughout 

the AOI to improve detection of vocalizing marine mammals. This is in contrast to Alternative A, in 

which the use of PAM is optional. The use of PAM prior to and during seismic surveys (during both 

daytime and nighttime operations) may assist or improve the detection of marine mammals within the 

Level A exclusion zone, particularly during periods when visual monitoring is not possible. The use of 

PAM also allows operators to ramp-up sound sources and start or resume a seismic survey during times of 

reduced visibility. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations continue during periods of 

reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, operators must monitor the 

waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective monitoring technologies. Those 

technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment and/or 

PAM. 

In order to be effective, PAM relies on repeated vocalizations by marine mammals. The effectiveness 

of PAM also depends on the ability to properly identify species-specific vocalizations (when those marine 

mammals are vocalizing) in the presence of ambient noise and other noise sources (Ward et al., 2011). 

McDonald and Fox (1999) proposed the application of PAM techniques to visually based marine 

mammal density estimations and suggest that acoustic detection (via PAM) should provide measurable 

increases in marine mammal densities for several species (e.g., fin and blue whales). Mellinger et al. 

(2007), in their overview of PAM techniques, noted that acoustic surveys detect 1-10 times as many 

cetacean groups as visual ones (McDonald and Moore, 2002; Širovic et al., 2004; Barlow and Taylor, 

2005; Rankin et al., 2007). Consequently, the effectiveness of PAM for detecting and locating marine 

mammals may vary significantly. In addition, because the use of PAM is optional under Alternative A, 

identification of when and where it might be employed as an option becomes problematic. Therefore, the 

required use of PAM prior to and during seismic airgun surveys and certain HRG surveys within the AOI 

would not change any impacts to marine mammals analyzed in Chapter 4.2.2.2. It would, however, 

provide for greater confidence that animals can be adequately detected entering or within an acoustic 

exclusion zone than with visual monitoring alone. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-231

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a minimum 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol (during both daytime and nighttime operations) and during non-airgun HRG surveys at 

night and during periods of reduced visibility with sound sources operating at frequencies at and below 

200 kHz. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound sources – 

while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from 

Alternative A and would range from minor to moderate; (2) vessel and equipment noise – while impacts 

would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from Alternative A 

and would range from negligible to minor; (3) vessel traffic – while impacts would be reduced due to 

time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from Alternative A and would be negligible; 

(4) aircraft traffic and noise – impacts would remain unchanged and would range from negligible to 

minor; and (5) trash and debris – impacts would remain unchanged and would be negligible. 

4.3.2.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on marine mammals would be very similar to 

those analyzed for Alternative A in Chapter 4.2.2.3. The analysis concluded that a small spill at the sea 

surface would result in negligible to minor impacts to marine mammals. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. The time-area closures may reduce the possibility of 

spilled fuel from reaching NARW adults and calves during periods of migration within their migratory 

corridor and during calving and nursing activities within their designated critical habitat. However, a fuel 

spill outside of the closure areas may drift into these closure areas during these periods or may occur 

within the closure areas outside the closure period. In addition, spills from other survey vessels could 

occur during the closure period if surveys were authorized based on the frequency of the proposed HRG

survey equipment. Consequently, a change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic 

airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk to marine mammals from a small fuel spill. 

Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on marine mammals would remain the 

same as under Alternative A (negligible to minor). 

4.3.2.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts ranging from negligible to minor to marine mammals

from active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, 

trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. These IPFs would also contribute to the cumulative activities 

scenario under Alternative B. The cumulative activities scenario for marine mammals, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.2.4, includes (1) oil and gas development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine 

minerals use, (4) geosequestration, (5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, 

(7) military range complexes and civilian space program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, 

(9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact

sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative 

vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified negligible to significant incremental increases 

in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. The significant impact increase was issued for potential 

impacts resulting from an accidental well blowout with a release of crude oil.

Additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would limit seismic airgun surveys in certain areas and during certain time periods. The NARW 

time-area closure would significantly reduce the extent, severity, and/or timing of active acoustic sound 

source, vessel and equipment noise, and vessel collision impacts to NARWs during seasonal migrations 

and calving-nursing periods within their critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs, but these measures would not 

affect overall impacts to marine mammals in other areas of the AOI and would not appreciably change the 

cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. Only negligible incremental increases in ambient noise 
4-232 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

levels would occur under the cumulative scenario. The time-area closure of inner shelf waters off 

Brevard County, Florida, during the sea turtle nesting period is not expected to reduce cumulative impact

levels to marine mammals identified under Alternative A. Impacts to marine mammals from trash and 

debris are expected to be avoided through required compliance with existing regulations and BSEE

guidance; therefore, impacts would remain unchanged (negligible) under the cumulative scenario for 

Alternative B.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain areas 

but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on marine mammals. 

These concurrent survey limits would provide areas for marine mammals to escape active acoustic 

sounds. Impacts to marine mammals from trash and debris are expected to be avoided through required 

compliance with existing regulations and BSEE guidance. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B

would be unchanged (negligible) by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys.

The use of PAM in Alternative B may improve detection of marine mammals during seismic survey 

and some non-airgun HRG survey mitigation monitoring activities; however, it is not anticipated that the 

use of PAM would change any marine mammal cumulative impacts determined under Alternative A. It 

would, however, provide more certainty that animals entering or within the acoustic exclusion zone are 

adequately detected than with visual monitoring alone.

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period, or spilled oil could move into the closure 

areas. Spills from other survey vessels could also occur during the closure period if surveys were 

authorized based on the frequency of the proposed HRG survey equipment. A change in survey timing 

because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small 

fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential cumulative impacts on marine mammals

would be the same under Alternative B as determined under Alternative A and would be negligible to

minor. 

4.3.3. Sea Turtles

Descriptions of the sea turtles present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.3.1. As outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.3.2, five IPFs from routine G&G activities may affect sea turtles, including (1) active 

acoustic sound sources, (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) vessel traffic, (4) aircraft traffic and noise, 

and (5) trash and debris (Table 4-2). Impacts to sea turtles under Alternative B would be very similar to 

those described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.3.2). The following discussion outlines the effects of 

additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B on sea turtles.

4.3.3.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.3.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. Seismic airgun

surveys would not be authorized in the additional 20-nmi closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 and April 30, or in the additional 20 nmi closure area 

offshore Florida between November 15 and April 15. Additionally, seismic airgun surveys would not be 

allowed in active DMAs (Chapter 2.1.3.1). Seismic airgun surveys conducted outside of the protected 

areas (NARW critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs) would be required to remain at distances where 

received sound levels at the protected area boundaries do not exceed the Level B harassment threshold for 

marine mammals. HRG non-airgun surveys are authorized year-round within the AOI, including those 

authorized in DMAs, within the NARW critical habitat and Southeast and Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMAs 

between 1 November and 30 April, in the expanded Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA between 1 November and 

30 April and in the expanded Southeast U.S. SMA between 15 November and 15 April, subject to the 

HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2). These include operation restrictions within the whale critical 

habitat and DMAs, establishment of a 200-m (656-ft) acoustic exclusion zone for non-airgun HRG 

surveys operating at and below 200 kHz, visual monitoring of this acoustic exclusion zone by PSOs, and 

sound source shutdown requirements.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-233

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.2, applicable routine IPFs for sea turtles include active acoustic sound 

sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, and trash and debris. In the

analysis of potential impacts under Alternative A, impacts of most active acoustic sound sources on sea 

turtles are expected to be negligible or minor with one exception. Impacts from seismic airgun surveys 

conducted in inner shelf waters within the southern part of the AOI during sea turtle nesting season are 

expected to range from minor to moderate if nesting activities are substantially affected. Under 

Alternative B, no airgun surveys would be authorized within the closure area during the specified periods. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.1, inner shelf waters from North Carolina to Florida provide important 

winter habitat for loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and green turtles. These areas also serve as a seasonal 

migration corridor for these species between their northern (summer) habitats and winter habitats. It is 

expected that this time-area closure would effectively reduce or eliminate active acoustic sound source 

related impacts to neritic juvenile, subadult, and adult sea turtles within the closure areas during the 

specified time frame. The time-area closure mitigation measure would not, however, change the overall 

level of impacts from active acoustic sound sources to all sea turtle species within the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 2.1.3.2, the HRG Survey Protocol established for sound sources operating at 

and below 200 kHz include the establishment of a 200-m-radius acoustic exclusion zone around the sound 

source, monitoring by trained PSOs, and start-up and shutdown requirements. This Protocol also restrict 

HRG surveys within NARW critical habitat from 15 November to 15 April for operations using 

equipment that operates at frequencies at and below 30 kHz. Deep stratigraphic test drilling (>500 ft 

below mudline) and the drilling of shallow test wells (<500 ft below mudzone) would not be authorized 

inside of the closure areas when they are in effect. The review process for non-airgun G&G surveys could 

result in altered timing of proposed surveys. The Survey Protocols are expected to reduce potential 

impacts to sea turtles from seismic or non-airgun HRG survey noise; however, it is not expected to 

change the level of impacts to sea turtles within the AOI, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.3.2 as 

no effect, negligible, or minor. 

The effects of vessel and equipment noise on sea turtles, including behavioral changes and possibly 

auditory masking, would be eliminated in the closure zone for vessel operations associated with airgun

surveys and possibly for non-airgun HRG surveys but would remain in other portions of the AOI; impacts 

would remain negligible if a time-area closure for NARWs was implemented. Drilling-related noises 

associated with the proposed activity would remain unchanged if a time-area closure for NARWs was 

implemented under Alternative B (i.e., negligible). Vessel traffic-related impacts would be reduced in the 

closure zone for vessel operations associated with airgun surveys and possibly for non-airgun HRG 

surveys but would remain elsewhere in the AOI; vessel traffic impacts would remain negligible under 

Alternative B. Aircraft operations would not be affected in the closure zone if a time-area closure for 

NARWs was implemented under Alternative B; therefore, impacts of aircraft–related noise and physical 

disturbance to sea turtles would remain negligible. Impacts to sea turtles from accidentally lost trash and 

debris are expected to be avoided through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and 

BSEE guidance, and therefore impacts would be unchanged (negligible) under Alternative B.

4.3.3.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would also include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1-October 31). No airgun surveys would be authorized 

within the closure area during this time. HRG surveys utilizing non-airgun sources with operating 

frequencies greater than 1.6 kHz would be allowed within the closure area year-round. One exception 

would be if a DMA is established within the closure area. In this case, all HRG sound sources operating 

at frequencies at and below 30 kHz would be discontinued within 24 hr of the time a DMA is established.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.2, applicable routine IPFs for sea turtles include active acoustic sound 

sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, and trash and debris. In the 

analysis of potential impacts under Alternative A, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on sea turtles 

are expected to be negligible to moderate. The time-area closure for nesting sea turtles under 

Alternative B would significantly reduce the extent, severity, or timing of potential seismic airgun

noise-related impacts to nesting adults and hatchlings within inner shelf waters and nesting beaches of 

Brevard County, which is among the most important areas in the world for loggerhead turtle nesting 

(Chapter 4.2.3.1). In addition, seismic survey vessels would not be expected to pass through these 

waters during the time-area closure, which would reduce the potential for vessel noise impacts and 
4-234 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

collisions with turtles. Therefore, this mitigation measure would change the evaluation of potential 

impacts from active acoustic sound sources to sea turtles within the AOI, reducing impacts from 

negligible to moderate under Alternative A to negligible to minor under Alternative B, because of the 

sea turtle time-area closure.

It is important to note that there are other areas within the AOI that support relatively high levels of 

sea turtle nesting (consisting of primarily loggerhead and green turtle nests, with some leatherback turtle 

nests). During the 2010 nesting season, high density areas were documented in Volusia County, Florida 

(just north of Brevard County) and Charleston County, South Carolina. Each of these areas supported 

over 2,000 nests during this nesting season (Figure 4-14); by comparison, the number of loggerhead nests 

present along Brevard County beaches, within the area protected by the time-area closure, was estimated 

at >31,000 in 2010 (http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting). Critical habitat for the 

loggerhead turtle within the northwest Atlantic Ocean has been proposed by the NMFS and is currently 

under review. Therefore, this rule is not considered within this analysis. This proposed rule is briefly 

described in Appendix M. Detailed information on the proposed rule may be found in the Federal 

Register (2013f). The closure of Brevard County during the turtle nesting season would significantly 

reduce potential impact levels to nesting activities within the extremely important nesting areas in 

Brevard County, and would protect adult females lingering near the nesting beaches before and between 

nesting events, and adults and dispersing hatchlings following emergence, from possible auditory injury 

associated with seismic airguns. The sea turtle time-area closure would not mitigate potential impacts to 

other nesting beaches within the AOI. Based on criteria for potential impacts to sea turtles, the protection 

of near-coastal waters off Brevard County provides a significant reduction in potential impact to nesting 

sea turtles. The potential loss of loggerhead, green, or leatherback nests in the other areas of the AOI 

resulting from seismic airgun survey activities would constitute a little disruption of critical, 

time-sensitive behaviors. Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, HRG non-airgun surveys 

would be allowed year-round within the closure area for survey sources operating at frequencies greater 

than 1.6 kHz. One exception would be if a DMA is established within the closure area. This Survey 

Protocol for HRG surveys would not be expected to change the extent or severity of impacts to sea turtles, 

which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.3.2 as ranging from negligible to minor. 

The effects of vessel and equipment noise on sea turtles, including behavioral changes and possibly 

auditory masking, would be eliminated in the closure zone for vessel operations associated with airgun

surveys and possibly for HRG surveys, but would remain in other portions of the AOI; impacts would 

remain negligible if a time-area closure for sea turtles was implemented under Alternative B. 

Drilling-related noises associated with the proposed activity would remain unchanged (i.e., negligible). 

Vessel traffic-related impacts would be reduced in the closure zone for vessel operations associated with 

airgun surveys and possibly for HRG surveys, but would remain elsewhere in the AOI; vessel traffic

impacts would remain negligible if a time-area closure for sea turtles was implemented under 

Alternative B. Aircraft operations would not be affected in the closure zone under Alternative B; 

therefore, impacts of aircraft–related noise and physical disturbance to sea turtles would remain 

negligible. Impacts to sea turtles from accidentally lost trash and debris are expected to be avoided 

through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance, and therefore 

impacts would be unchanged (negligible) if a time-area closure for sea turtles was implemented under 

Alternative B.

4.3.3.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on 

marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and 

environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not 

apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider 

any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-235

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.2, applicable routine IPFs for sea turtles are active acoustic sound 

sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic (i.e., vessel collisions), aircraft traffic and noise, and 

trash and debris. Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not significantly change the extent 

or severity of active acoustic sound impacts. The limits are intended to limit these surveys to discrete 

areas at any given time to provide sea turtles with areas to avoid associated active acoustic sounds and 

survey-related vessel traffic. Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could 

change the timing of these surveys in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance but 

would depend on the schedule and planned coverage of individual surveys. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.3.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on sea turtles are expected to range from 

negligible to moderate. A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys would not alter the overall level of impacts on sea turtles. Therefore, impacts to sea turtles from 

seismic airgun sources would remain negligible to moderate with a limit on concurrent surveys.

The effects of vessel and equipment noise on sea turtles would not be eliminated or reduced with a 

restriction on concurrent surveys; impacts would remain negligible. Drilling-related noises associated 

with the proposed activity would remain unchanged with a restriction on concurrent surveys; impacts to 

sea turtles would remain negligible. Vessel traffic-related impacts would also remain unchanged 

(i.e., negligible) with a restriction on concurrent surveys. Aircraft operations would not be affected by a 

restriction on concurrent surveys; impacts of aircraft–related noise and physical disturbance to sea turtles 

would remain negligible. Impacts to sea turtles from accidentally lost trash and debris are expected to be 

avoided through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance, and 

therefore impacts would be unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys (negligible). 

4.3.3.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM (during both daytime and nighttime operations) in the 

Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM 

approves nighttime operations or if operations continue during periods of reduced visibility for nonairgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, operators must monitor the waters around the 

acoustic exclusion zone using available effective monitoring technologies. Those technologies may 

include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of 

PAM would not change any impacts to sea turtles analyzed in Chapter 4.2.3.2. Impacts from active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, and trash and 

debris would range from negligible to moderate, depending upon the IPF.

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Seismic Airgun and HRG Survey Protocols within and adjacent to the time-area 

closures are discussed in Chapter 2.2.2. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include 

(1) active acoustic sound sources – impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts 

would be reduced from Alternative A and would range from negligible to minor; (2) vessel and 

equipment noise – impacts would be reduced due to the sea turtle time-area closures, but overall impacts 

would remain unchanged from Alternative A and would be negligible; (3) vessel traffic – while impacts 

would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from Alternative A 

and would be negligible; (4) aircraft traffic and noise – impacts would remain unchanged and would be 

negligible; and (5) trash and debris – impacts would remain unchanged and would be negligible. 

4.3.3.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on sea turtles would be very similar to those 

analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.3.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at the sea surface 

would result in negligible to minor impacts to sea turtles. 
4-236 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Likewise, spilled fuel could drift into the 

closure areas during the closure periods. In addition, spills from other survey vessels could occur during 

the closure period if surveys were authorized based on the frequency of the proposed HRG survey 

equipment. Consequently, a change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys would not substantially change the risk to sea turtles from a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a 

small fuel spill and the potential impacts on sea turtles would remain the same as under Alternative A 

(i.e., ranging from negligible to minor). 

4.3.3.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts to sea turtles ranging from negligible to moderate, 

arising from active acoustic sound sources (seismic airgun and HRG non-airgun sources), vessel and 

equipment noise, vessel traffic (collisions), aircraft traffic and noise (disturbance), trash and debris, and 

accidental fuel spills. These IPFs would also contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under 

Alternative B. The cumulative activities scenario, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.3.4, includes (1) oil and gas 

development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine minerals use, (4) geosequestration, (5) LNG 

terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, (7) military range complexes and civilian space 

program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, (9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new cable 

infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; 

(2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis 

identified negligible to moderate incremental increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. 

The significant impact increase was determined for potential impacts resulting from active acoustic sound 

sources (i.e., seismic sources) and potential nesting disruptions to sea turtles.

Additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would limit seismic airgun surveys in certain areas and during certain time periods. The NARW

time-area closure would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. Only 

negligible incremental increases in ambient noise levels would occur from Alternatives A or B under the 

cumulative scenario. The time-area closure of inner shelf waters off Brevard County, Florida, during the 

sea turtle nesting period would significantly reduce the extent, severity, or timing of active acoustic sound 

sources, vessel and equipment noise, and vessel collision impacts to nesting adult and hatchling sea turtles 

within this area of the AOI but would not affect overall impacts to sea turtle nesting in other nesting areas 

within the AOI. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not expected to reduce cumulative impact levels 

identified under Alternative A. Impacts to sea turtles from trash and debris are expected to be avoided 

through required compliance with existing regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts would 

remain unchanged (negligible) under the cumulative scenario for Alternative B.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain areas 

but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on sea turtles. These 

concurrent survey limits would provide areas for sea turtles to escape active acoustic sounds. Impacts to 

sea turtles from trash and debris are expected to be avoided through required compliance with existing 

regulations and BSEE guidance. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be unchanged 

(negligible) by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any sea turtle cumulative impacts determined 

under Alternative A. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period or spilled oil could move into the closure 

areas. Spills from other survey vessels could also occur during the closure period if surveys were 

authorized based on the frequency of the proposed HRG survey equipment. A change in survey timing 

because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small 

fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential cumulative impacts on sea turtles would 

be the same under Alternative B as determined under Alternative A and would be negligible to minor. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-237

4.3.4. Marine and Coastal Birds

Descriptions of the marine and coastal birds present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.4.1. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, IPFs for marine and coastal birds include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources, (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) vessel traffic, (4) aircraft traffic and noise, and (5) trash and 

debris (Table 4-2). Impacts to marine and coastal birds under Alternative B would be very similar to 

those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.4.2). The following discussion outlines the 

effects of additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B on marine and coastal birds.

4.3.4.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.4.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, applicable routine IPFs for marine and coastal birds are active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and vessel and equipment noise, aircraft traffic and noise, and trash

and debris. The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of 

seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 

20-nmi closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 20-nmi closure area offshore Florida between November 15 and 

April 15. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on marine and 

coastal birds are expected to be negligible to minor depending on the location. A change in survey 

timing in the additional closure areas would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic 

airgun surveys on marine and coastal birds since this additional closure would be outside of breeding and 

nesting periods.

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys in NARW critical habitat area, in 

the SMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area would be performed in accordance with the 

HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring

requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, many of the 

surveys that would be performed for renewable energy and marine minerals sites would use equipment 

with frequency ranges that are outside the hearing range of birds (e.g., side-scan sonar, depth sounders) 

and should be inaudible to birds; therefore, these sources would not be expected to result in impacts to 

marine and coastal birds. This Protocol could result in altered timing of G&G surveys depending on the 

frequency of the HRG source used, but it would not be expected to change the extent or severity of 

impacts to marine and coastal birds, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.4.2 as negligible. 

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas and reduce the vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment noise

from these surveys in the coastal areas during certain times of the year when compared to Alternative A. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, impacts of vessel traffic and vessel and equipment noise on marine and 

coastal birds are expected to be negligible to minor depending on the location. A change in survey 

timing in the additional closure areas would potentially reduce the impacts of vessel traffic and noise from 

seismic airgun surveys on some groups of marine and coastal birds (e.g., shorebirds) since these surveys 

would not occur within the coastal waters for half of the year. However, the impacts to marine and 

coastal birds from vessel traffic and noise would still be expected to be negligible to minor for IBAs 

since the additional closure would occur outside of breeding and nesting periods.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas but would not affect the potential for 1–2 aeromagnetic surveys to occur. 

Therefore, it is expected that the impacts from aircraft traffic and noise would remain unchanged (e.g., 

negligible to minor) for the additional time-area closure under Alternative B.

Impacts of trash and debris to marine and coastal birds are expected to be negligible through required 

compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance, and therefore impacts would be 

unchanged under Alternative B. 
4-238 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3.4.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including non-airgun HRG surveys, would be performed in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2.), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce 

impacts on sea turtles but would allow HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range 

of sea turtles (above 1.6 kHz) year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle 

closure area.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, applicable routine IPFs for marine and coastal birds are active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment noise, aircraft traffic and noise, 

and trash and debris. The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the 

timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the 

closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.4.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on marine and coastal birds are expected to be 

negligible to minor, depending on the location. A change in survey timing in the closure area would not 

alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on marine and coastal birds which 

would remain negligible to minor, depending on the location.

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, other non-airgun surveys in the closure area would 

be performed in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2.), and HRG surveys using 

non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 1.6 kHz) would be allowed year-round, 

including between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area. This Protocol could result in 

altered timing of G&G surveys in this area depending on the frequency of the HRG source used, but it

would not be expected to change the extent or severity of impacts from active acoustic sound sources to 

marine and coastal birds, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.4.2 as negligible. 

Chapter 4.2.4.2 evaluated the impacts from vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment noise

as negligible to minor, depending on the location. The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under 

Alternative B would change the timing of some G&G survey activities in certain areas. These additional 

mitigation measures would not alter the impacts of vessel traffic and the associated vessel and equipment 

noise to marine and coastal birds, which would remain as negligible to minor, depending on the location.

The additional time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of 

seismic airgun surveys in certain areas but would not affect the potential for one to two aeromagnetic

surveys to occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts from aircraft traffic and noise would remain 

unchanged (e.g., negligible to minor) for the additional time-area closure under Alternative B.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, impacts of trash and debris to marine and coastal birds are expected 

to be negligible through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance, 

and impacts would be unchanged under Alternative B. 

4.3.4.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on 

marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and 

environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not 

apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider 

any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, applicable routine IPFs for marine and coastal birds are active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment noise, aircraft traffic and noise, 

and trash and debris. Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the 

timing of these surveys in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance, but this would 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-239

depend on the schedule, planned coverage of individual surveys, and ports to be used for support 

activities. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and 

the associated vessel and equipment noise on marine and coastal birds are expected to be negligible to 

minor, depending on location. A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys would not alter the impacts from active acoustic sound, vessel traffic, vessel and equipment noise, 

or aircraft traffic and noise on marine and coastal birds, which would remain negligible to minor, 

depending on location. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.2, impacts of trash and debris on marine and 

coastal birds are expected to be negligible through required compliance with USCG and USEPA 

regulations and BSEE guidance, and impacts would be unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys.

4.3.4.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any impacts to 

marine and coastal birds analyzed in Chapter 4.2.4.2. 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources – while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain 

unchanged from Alternative A and would range from negligible to minor; (2) vessel and equipment noise

while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from 

Alternative A and would range from negligible to minor; (3) vessel traffic – impacts would be reduced 

due to time-area closures, overall impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative A and would be 

negligible; (4) aircraft traffic and noise – impacts would remain unchanged and would range from 

negligible to minor; and (5) trash and debris – impacts would remain unchanged and would be 

negligible. 

4.3.4.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on marine and coastal birds would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A in Chapter 4.2.4.3. The analysis concluded that a small spill 

at the sea surface would result in negligible to moderate impacts, depending on the location of the spill 

and if threatened and endangered bird species found within the AOI were adversely affected. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from other survey vessels could 

occur during the closure period depending on the frequency of the HRG source used. A change in survey 

timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a 

small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on marine and coastal 

birds would be the same as under Alternative A and would range from negligible to moderate, depending 

on the location of the spill and if threatened and endangered bird species found within the AOI were 

affected. 
4-240 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3.4.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.4.1 and 4.3.4.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts ranging from negligible to moderate to marine and 

coastal birds, depending on the activity, as a result of active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and 

associated vessel and equipment noise, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel 

spills. The cumulative activities scenario for marine and coastal birds, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.4.4, 

includes (1) oil and gas development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine minerals use;

(4) geosequestration, (5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, (7) military range 

complexes and civilian space program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, (9) dredged material 

disposal, and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were 

identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The 

IPFs that would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative B include underwater 

noise including active acoustic sound sources and vessel and equipment noise, presence of structures 

including vessel and helicopter traffic, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. The cumulative impact 

analysis identified negligible incremental increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A except 

for accidental fuel spills, which was identified as having a minor to moderate incremental increase in 

impacts depending on the bird species affected (i.e., threatened and endangered). The cumulative 

scenario would remain unchanged for Alternative B, and the associated impacts would remain the same.

Alternative B would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas; however, these 

time-area closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. 

4.3.5. Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

Descriptions of the fisheries resources and EFH present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.5.1. 

As outlined in Chapter 4.2.5.2, IPFs related to fisheries resources and EFH (Table 4-2) included 

(1) active acoustic sound sources (i.e., airguns, electromechanical sources [e.g., subbottom profilers, 

side-scan sonar, etc.]), (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) seafloor disturbance; and (4) drilling 

discharges. Impacts to fisheries resources and EFH under Alternative B would be similar to those 

previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.5.2). The following discussion outlines the effects 

of the additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B on fisheries resources and EFH. 

4.3.5.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.5.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.5.2, applicable routine IPFs for fisheries resources and EFH are active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, seafloor disturbance, and drilling discharges. 

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.5.2, impacts of airguns on fisheries resources and EFH are 

expected to range from minor to moderate. Impacts from electromechanical sources and vessel and 

equipment noise on fisheries resources and EFH are expected to be minor. A change in survey timing in 

the additional closure areas would not alter the impacts of seismic airgun surveys or vessel and equipment 

noise on fisheries resources and EFH.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not change the extent, 

severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts. Given the minimal seafloor disturbance expected by 

projected G&G activities (Chapter 3.5.1.8), the impacts are expected to be negligible. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-241

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area 

would follow the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2) and would allow HRG surveys using 

non-airgun sources. These authorizations include additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to 

avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. This Protocol could result in altered timing of G&G surveys, 

including those involving seafloor disturbance, but would not be expected to change the extent or severity 

of impacts, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.5.2 as negligible. 

Drilling discharges from COST and shallow test wells would affect limited portions of the water 

column and seafloor surrounding individual wells. Because of the small areas affected by proposed G&G

well drilling activities, the impacts to fisheries resources and EFH because of drilling discharges are 

expected to be negligible. The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not 

change the extent, severity, or timing of drilling discharge impacts.

4.3.5.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2) 

and would allow HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 

1.6 kHz) year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.5.2, applicable routine IPFs for fisheries resources and EFH are active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, seafloor disturbance, and drilling discharges. 

Impacts of airguns on fisheries resources and EFH are expected to range from minor to moderate, and 

impacts of active acoustic sound sources and vessel and equipment noise on fisheries resources and EFH 

are expected to be minor (Chapter 4.2.5.2). The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under 

Alternative B would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys 

would not be authorized in the closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through 

October 31. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.5.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on fisheries 

resources and EFH are expected to be minor. A change in survey timing in the closure area would not 

alter the impacts of seismic airgun surveys on fisheries resources and EFH.

The additional time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would not change the 

extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance. Given the minimal seafloor disturbance expected by 

projected G&G activities (Chapter 3.5.1.8), the impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, other non-airgun surveys in the closure area would 

be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which would allow HRG surveys 

using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 1.6 kHz) year-round, including 

between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area. 

Drilling discharges from COST and shallow test wells would affect limited portions of the water 

column and seafloor surrounding individual wells. Because of the small areas affected by proposed G&G

well drilling activities, the impacts to fisheries resources and EFH because of drilling discharges are 

expected to be negligible. The additional time-area closure for sea turtles under Alternative B would not 

change the extent, severity, or timing of drilling discharge impacts.

4.3.5.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on 

marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and 

environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not 
4-242 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider 

any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.5.2, applicable routine IPFs for fisheries resources and EFH are active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, seafloor disturbance, and drilling discharges. 

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of these 

surveys and vessel and equipment noise in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance 

and would depend on the schedule and planned coverage of individual surveys. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.5.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources and vessel and equipment noise on fisheries

resources and EFH are expected to be minor. A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent 

seismic airgun surveys would not alter the impacts on fisheries resources and EFH.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not change the extent, severity, or timing of 

seafloor disturbance or drilling discharge impacts to fisheries resource and EFH, as analyzed in 

Chapter 4.2.5.2, and are expected to be negligible. 

4.3.5.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any fisheries

resource and EFH impacts analyzed in Chapter 4.2.5.2, including those determined for airguns (minor to 

moderate), electromechanical sources (minor), vessel and equipment noise (minor), seafloor disturbance 

(negligible), and drilling discharges (negligible). 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources – while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain 

unchanged from Alternative A and would be minor to moderate; (2) vessel and equipment noise – while 

impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from 

Alternative A and would be minor; (3) seafloor disturbance – impacts would remain unchanged and 

would be negligible; and (4) drilling discharges – impacts would remain unchanged and would be 

negligible. 

4.3.5.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on fisheries resources and EFH would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.5.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at 

the sea surface could have an effect on the planktonic early life stages of fish and Sargassum; however, 

the effects are expected to last for a day or less and have limited spatial extent; therefore, impacts of a 

small accidental diesel fuel spill from G&G activities would be minor. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. A change in survey timing because of limits 

on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. 

Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on fisheries resources and EFH would be 

the same as under Alternative A and would be minor. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-243

4.3.5.3. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario (Chapter 3.6) includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the 

AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; 

(4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range 

complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material 

disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were 

identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. Impact 

analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.5.2 and 4.2.5.3 determined that activities projected to occur under 

Alternative A would result in impacts ranging from negligible to minor to fisheries resources and EFH, 

depending on the activity. The IPFs identified in Chapter 4.2.5.4 for the cumulative impacts scenario 

included (1) active acoustic sound sources, (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) seafloor disturbance, 

(4) drilling discharges, and (5) accidental fuel spills. The following analysis considers whether those 

incremental impacts, when added to or acting synergistically with other impact sources from the 

cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a significant impact under Alternative B. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys and, therefore, vessel traffic in certain areas. 

Overall, however, these time-area closures would not appreciably change the small incremental increase 

in impacts (i.e., small incremental increase in ambient noise levels) noted under Alternative A. Ambient 

noise levels and vessel traffic would be reduced during the closures, but the reduction would be 

temporary under the cumulative scenario. Additional time-area closures would not change the extent, 

severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts under Alternative B; therefore, there would be no 

change to the negligible incremental cumulative impacts identified under Alternative A.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys and vessel 

traffic in certain areas but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise or vessel traffic from 

seismic airgun surveys on fisheries resources and EFH. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B would 

be unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any of the incremental impacts identified for 

fisheries resources and EFH under Alternative A. 

Cumulative scenario activities, including oil and gas exploration, renewable energy, geosequestration, 

and LNG terminals, have the potential for the emplacement of structures within the AOI and such 

structures would attract fishes. Most G&G activities would be of short duration and are not expected to 

cause permanent alteration of migratory, feeding, or breeding schedules in fishery species. Because of the 

small size of structures and the relatively short duration of deployments, the incremental increase in 

cumulative impacts on fisheries resources and EFH from the presence of structures is negligible under 

Alternative A. The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as 

discussed above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys but would not alter the impacts of 

structures within the AOI and therefore would not affect the cumulative impacts identified under 

Alternative A.

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario for 

Alternative A. The impacts of accidental fuel spills arising from a vessel collision under the cumulative 

scenario are expected to be minor. Spilled diesel fuel would evaporate, disperse, and break down within a 

day, resulting in minor impacts to fisheries resources and EFH. Non-G&G activities at risk for spilled 

fuel include geosequestration, commercial and recreational fishing, military activity, and dredged material 

disposal. Assuming a similar spill scenario for non-G&G activity, the incremental increase in cumulative 

impacts for the AOI are expected to be minor. Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys 

because of additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills 

from seismic survey vessels could occur in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. A 

change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially 

change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential incremental 

increase to cumulative impacts on fisheries resources and EFH would be the same under Alternative B as 

determined under Alternative A and would be minor. 
4-244 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3.6. Threatened and Endangered Fish Species

Descriptions of the threatened and endangered fish species present in the AOI were provided in 

Chapter 4.2.6.1. As outlined in Chapter 4.2.6.2, six IPFs from routine G&G activities may affect 

threatened and endangered fishes, including (1) active acoustic sound sources, (2) vessel and equipment 

noise, (3) vessel traffic, (4) trash and debris, (5) seafloor disturbance, and (6) drilling discharges

(Table 4-2). Impacts to threatened and endangered fishes under Alternative B would be very similar to 

those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.6.2). The following discussion outlines the 

effects of the additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B on threatened and endangered 

fishes.

4.3.6.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.6.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

Three endangered fish species (smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon) occur 

in the AOI. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.2, applicable routine IPFs for threatened and endangered 

fishes are active acoustic sound sources; vessel and equipment noise; vessel traffic; seafloor disturbance; 

drilling discharges; and trash and debris. Potential accidents were also considered in this impact analysis. 

The following subsections briefly discuss impacts resulting from these IPFs.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources vessel and 

equipment noise on threatened and endangered fishes are expected to range from negligible to minor, 

depending on the species of fish. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas as proposed in 

Alternative B would not alter the impacts of seismic survey or vessel and equipment noise on threatened 

and endangered fishes.

Impacts of vessel traffic, including mortality associated with vessel strike, are expected to be 

negligible. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas as proposed in Alternative B would 

not alter the impacts of vessel traffic on threatened and endangered fishes. The additional time-area 

closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor 

disturbance impacts (negligible). Impacts of trash and debris to threatened and endangered fish species 

are expected to be avoided through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE 

guidance; therefore, impacts from trash and debris would be unchanged under Alternative B (negligible). 

Impacts to bottom-feeding threatened and endangered fishes from drilling discharge deposition are 

expected to be negligible. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas as proposed in 

Alternative B would not alter the impacts of drilling discharges on threatened and endangered fishes.

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area 

would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2) and include additional 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. The requirements of the 

HRG Survey Protocol could result in altered timing of G&G surveys, including those involving seafloor 

disturbance, but would not be expected to change the extent or severity of impacts, which are evaluated in 

Chapter 4.2.6.2 as negligible. 

4.3.6.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-245

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), 

which would allow HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 

1.6 kHz) year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area and

includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.2, applicable routine IPFs for threatened and endangered fishes are 

active acoustic sound sources; vessel and equipment noise; vessel traffic; seafloor disturbance; drilling 

discharges; and trash and debris. The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would 

change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be 

authorized in the closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on threatened and endangered 

fishes are expected to range from negligible (smalltooth sawfish and shortnose sturgeon) to minor

(Atlantic sturgeon, and impacts from vessel and equipment noise are expected to be negligible. A change 

in survey timing in the closure area would not alter the impacts of seismic airgun surveys on threatened 

and endangered fishes.

Impacts of vessel traffic are expected to be negligible. A change in survey timing in the additional 

closure areas as proposed in Alternative B would not alter the impacts of vessel traffic on threatened and 

endangered fishes. The additional time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would not 

change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts (negligible). Impacts of trash and 

debris to threatened and endangered fish species are expected to be avoided through required compliance 

with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts would be unchanged under 

Alternative B (negligible). 

Impacts to bottom-feeding threatened and endangered fishes from drilling discharge deposition are 

expected to be negligible. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas as proposed in 

Alternative B would not alter the impacts of drilling discharges on threatened and endangered fishes.

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, other non-airgun surveys in the closure area would 

be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which would allow HRG surveys 

using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 1.6 kHz) year-round, including 

between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area and includes additional mitigation and 

monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles. This Protocol could result in altered 

timing of G&G surveys in this area depending on the frequency of the HRG source used but would not 

be expected to change the extent or severity of impacts to threatened or endangered fishes, which are 

evaluated in Chapter 4.2.6.2 as negligible. 

4.3.6.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on 

marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and 

environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not 

apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider 

any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.2, applicable routine IPFs for threatened and endangered fishes are 

active acoustic sound sources; vessel and equipment noise; seafloor disturbance; and trash and debris. 

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of these surveys 

in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance and would depend on the schedule and 

planned coverage of individual surveys. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.2, impacts of active acoustic 

sound sources and vessel and equipment noise on threatened and endangered fishes are expected to range 

from negligible to minor. A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys under Alternative B would not alter the impacts on threatened and endangered fishes.
4-246 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not change the extent, severity, or timing of vessel 

traffic impacts (negligible), seafloor disturbance impacts (negligible), or drilling discharges (negligible). 

Impacts of trash and debris to threatened and endangered fish species are expected to be avoided through 

required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts would 

be unchanged under Alternative B (negligible). 

4.3.6.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any impacts to 

threatened and endangered fishes analyzed in Chapter 4.2.6.2. 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources – while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain 

unchanged from Alternative A and would range from negligible to minor; (2) vessel and equipment noise

– while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged 

from Alternative A and would range from negligible to minor; (3) vessel traffic – impacts would be 

reduced, overall impacts would remain negligible; (4) trash and debris – impacts would remain 

unchanged and would be negligible; (5) seafloor disturbance – impacts would remain unchanged and 

would be negligible; and (6) drilling discharges – impacts would remain unchanged and would be 

negligible. 

4.3.6.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on threatened and endangered fishes would be 

unchanged from those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.6.3). The analysis concluded that 

accidents involving G&G survey vessels and equipment are not expected to affect individuals or 

populations of threatened and endangered fish species. While Alternative B would change the timing of 

certain surveys because of additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys, 

spills may occur from other survey vessels. Spilled diesel fuel would generally remain in the surface 

waters and would evaporate, disperse, and break down within a day. Smalltooth sawfish give birth to live 

benthic young, and shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, the expected impact of an 

accidental diesel fuel spill is expected to be negligible for all three of these species.

4.3.6.3. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts scenario (Chapter 3.6) includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the 

AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; 

(4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range 

complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material 

disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were 

identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. Impact 

analyses presented in Chapters 4.2.6.2 and 4.2.6.3 determined that activities projected to occur under 

Alternative B would result in impacts ranging from negligible to minor to threatened and endangered 

fishes depending on the activity and species of fish. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.4, applicable routine 

IPFs for threatened and endangered fishes are (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-247

underwater noise from sonars, explosives, and other active sound sources and vessel and equipment noise; 

(2) vessel traffic; (3) seafloor disturbance; (4) trash and debris; (5) drilling discharges; and (6) accidental 

fuel spills. These IPFs would also contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative B. 

The following analysis considers whether those incremental impacts, when added to or acting 

synergistically with other impact sources from the cumulative impacts scenario, may result in a 

significant impact under Alternative B.

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys and, therefore, anthropogenic noise and vessel 

traffic in certain areas. Overall, however, these time-area closures would not appreciably change the 

cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A (negligible to minor). Ambient noise levels and vessel 

traffic would be reduced during the closures, but the reduction would be temporary under the cumulative 

scenario. Additional time-area closures would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor 

disturbance impacts under Alternative B; therefore, only minor incremental increases in ambient noise 

and vessel traffic levels would occur.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys and vessel 

traffic in certain areas but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise or vessel traffic from 

seismic airgun surveys on threatened and endangered fishes. In addition, these concurrent survey limits

would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts. Cumulative impacts

under Alternative B would be unchanged (negligible to minor) by limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys. Furthermore, additional time-area closures would not change the extent, severity, or timing of 

seafloor disturbance impacts under Alternative B; therefore, there would be no changes in the incremental 

increase in impacts identified under Alternative A. 

Impacts to threatened and endangered fishes from trash and debris are expected to be avoided through 

required compliance with existing regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts would be 

unchanged (negligible) under the cumulative scenario for Alternative B. The use of PAM in Alternative 

B would not change any cumulative impacts determined for threatened and endangered fishes in 

Alternative A. 

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario for 

Alternative A. The risk of accidental fuel spills arising from a vessel collision under the cumulative 

scenario is expected to range from negligible to minor. Alternative B would change the timing of certain 

surveys due to additional time-area closures and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys; however, a 

change in survey timing would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. The greatest risk of 

a fuel spill, such as the one portrayed in the accidental scenario (Chapter 3.5.2.1), is to fishes at various 

life stages that occur near or at the surface. Direct exposure would occur only in the water column near 

the discharge point, thus pelagic adults and planktonic eggs and larvae are most susceptible. Smalltooth 

sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, do not have pelagic life stages in AOI waters, therefore 

the impacts are expected to be negligible. The negligible incremental increases in potential accidental 

fuel spills from G&G activities identified for Alternative A under the cumulative scenario would remain 

unchanged.

4.3.7. Commercial Fisheries

Descriptions of the commercial fisheries present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.7.1. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, IPFs that may affect commercial fisheries include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources (e.g., airguns, bottom profilers, depth sounders, side-scan sonar); (2) vessel traffic; (3) vessel 

exclusion zones; and (4) seafloor disturbance (Table 4-2). Impacts to benthic communities under 

Alternative B would be very similar to those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.7.2). 

The following discussion outlines the effects of the additional mitigation measures included in 

Alternative B on commercial fisheries.

4.3.7.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.7.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 
4-248 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, applicable routine IPFs for commercial fisheries are active acoustic sound 

sources, vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones, and seafloor disturbance, with impacts ranging from 

negligible to minor, depending on the IPF.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on commercial fisheries

are expected to be minor. Among the seven states of the AOI, Virginia generated the most revenue in 

commercial landings, while North Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ranked second, third, and seventh in 

total value based on 2009 landings data. Commercial landings and the associated value typically increase 

steadily from winter (February) to late summer and peak in August, indicating the importance of the 

period of overlap (February through April) between increasing commercial landings and the Alternative B

additional time-area closures (November 1 through April 30). All of the commercial fishing activities 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2 could occur within the additional time-area closure area, with the exception 

of pelagic longlining. Therefore, during the additional time-area closure, any adverse effects from G&G

active acoustic noise on commercial fisheries within the closure area in the four northern states would be 

eliminated under Alternative B. In addition, related impacts associated with vessel traffic and vessel 

equipment and noise would also be eliminated in the time-closure area, as discussed further below.

Under Alternative A, there is an existing time-area closure off the coast of South Carolina, Georgia, 

and Florida; therefore, impacts to commercial fisheries in this southern area would remain unchanged 

under Alternative B. Even though the impacts to commercial fisheries would be eliminated within the 

additional closure area for the northern states of the AOI and the impacts would remain unchanged within 

the southern AOI states, the additional time-area closure area is only approximately 6,334,605 ac

(2,563,524 ha), or only 3.0 percent of the total AOI, which is not a significant area impacted by this 

additional closure. Therefore, this additional closure area would not alter the impacts of active acoustic

sound sources from seismic airgun surveys on commercial fisheries, which would remain minor. 

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area 

would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. This Protocol could 

result in altered timing of G&G surveys but would not be expected to change the extent or severity of 

commercial fishing impacts from survey vessel traffic or vessel exclusion zones, which are evaluated in 

Chapter 4.2.7.2 as minor. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, vessel traffic associated with G&G activities would increase in 

specific areas, thereby increasing the potential for interference with commercial fishing operations, 

especially dredges, otter trawls, longlines, and purse seines. These types of commercial fisheries could be 

affected, albeit on a limited basis, because an increase in vessel traffic (and associated vessel exclusion 

zones) throughout the fishing grounds may prevent commercial fishing operators from properly setting 

their gear; however, the impacts were determined to be minor for vessel traffic and vessel exclusion 

zones for Alternative A. Under Alternative B, G&G seismic survey activities would be precluded from 

the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area for 6 months of the year, and other non-airgun survey activity 

conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which would decrease the vessel 

traffic and associated vessel exclusion zones from this area during the closure time period. Therefore, 

seasonal commercial fishing activities in this region of the AOI would no longer have the potential for 

additional vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones associated with G&G survey activities during the 

closure period. However, since this additional closure area is only a very small portion of the AOI 

(3.0%), the impacts would remain the same (minor) for vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones under 

Alternative B.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-249

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B for all survey types would not 

change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts; therefore, impacts would remain 

negligible to minor, depending on location, under Alternative B.

4.3.7.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), 

which would allow HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 

1.6 kHz) year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area and 

which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea 

turtles. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, applicable routine IPFs for commercial fisheries are active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones, and seafloor disturbance.

The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in the additional time-area closure area. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized 

in the closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.7.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on commercial fisheries are expected to be 

minor. Commercial fisheries landings from Florida ranked fourth among the seven states in the AOI. 

Any adverse effects from G&G active acoustic noise on commercial fisheries operating within the 

additional sea turtle time-area closure off Broward County, Florida, would be eliminated between May 1 

and October 31 under Alternative B. However, the additional closure area is very small (312,785 ac, or 

0.15%) when compared to the entire AOI; therefore, this change in survey timing in the closure area 

would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on commercial fisheries, 

which would remain minor. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, vessel traffic associated with all G&G survey activities would 

increase in specific areas, thereby increasing the potential for interference with commercial fishing

operations, especially dredges, otter trawls, longlines, and purse seines. These types of commercial 

fisheries could be affected, albeit on a limited basis, because an increase in vessel traffic (and associated 

vessel exclusion zones) throughout the fishing grounds may prevent commercial fishing operators from 

properly setting their gear; however, the impacts were determined to be negligible for vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, G&G seismic survey activities would 

be precluded from the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area for 6 months of the year and other survey 

activity will be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which would allow 

HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 1.6 kHz) 

year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area. This would 

decrease the vessel traffic and associated vessel exclusion zones during this sea turtle nesting time-area 

closure. Therefore, seasonal commercial fishing activities in this region of the AOI would no longer have 

the potential for additional vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones associated with G&G survey 

activities during the closure period. However, since this additional closure area is only a very small 

portion of the AOI (0.15%), the impacts would remain the same (negligible) for vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones under Alternative B.

The additional time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would not change the 

extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts, which would remain negligible to minor,

depending on location.

4.3.7.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, applicable routine IPFs for commercial fisheries are active acoustic

sound sources, vessel traffic and exclusion areas, and seafloor disturbance. It is anticipated that through 

the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this separation distance may be 

modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any other surveys requested or 

authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some circumstances, airgun noise
4-250 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 

2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on marine species. 

Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA and environmental 

analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not apply this specific 

mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider any potential 

aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of these 

surveys in certain areas; the locations cannot be predicted in advance but would depend on the schedule 

and planned coverage of individual surveys. In addition, the limit on concurrent surveys has the potential 

to reduce impacts from active acoustic sound sources and vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones to 

commercial fisheries. However, this reduction of impacts would occur only within areas where 

commercial fishing grounds are large enough to accommodate more than one survey at a time. Therefore, 

the impacts to commercial fishing from both active acoustic sound sources and vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones would remain the same for Alternative B, minor and negligible, respectively.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not change the extent, severity, or timing of 

seafloor disturbance impacts; therefore, seafloor impacts under Alternative B would remain negligible to

minor depending on location.

4.3.7.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any commercial 

fisheries impacts analyzed in Chapter 4.2.7.2. 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources – while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain 

unchanged from Alternative A and would be minor; (2) vessel traffic – impacts would be reduced due to 

time-area closures, overall impacts would remain minor; (3) vessel exclusion zones – while impacts 

would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from Alternative A 

and would be minor; and (4) seafloor disturbance – impacts would remain unchanged and would be 

negligible to minor, depending on location. 

4.3.7.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on commercial fisheries would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.7.3). The Alternative A analysis concluded that 

a small spill at the sea surface would have negligible to minor impacts to commercial fisheries. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys due to additional time-area closures and 

limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur in 

the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from other survey vessels could 

occur during the closure period if non-airgun surveys were authorized in accordance with the HRG

Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing due to limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill 

and the potential impacts on commercial fisheries would be the same as under Alternative A and would 

range from negligible to minor. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-251

4.3.7.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.7.1 and 4.3.7.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts ranging from negligible to minor to commercial 

fisheries, depending on the activity, as a result of active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones, and seafloor disturbance. These IPFs would also contribute to the cumulative activities 

scenario under Alternative B. The cumulative activities scenario for commercial fisheries, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.7.4, includes the following: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy

development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and 

recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and 

marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified only negligible incremental 

increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. 

As described in Chapter 4.2.7.2, because there are no significant noise impacts evident from the 

cumulative activities scenario, and there is no evidence of ambient noise levels approaching a threshold 

level where commercial fisheries might be significantly affected, it is expected that the cumulative 

impacts to commercial fisheries associated with Alternative A would result in a minor incremental 

increase in impacts. The additional time-area closures would decrease the active acoustic noise in the 

closure areas for portions of the year. However, the combined total area of the additional closure areas is 

only a very small portion of the entire AOI (6,647,370 ac, or 3.2%) where commercial fishing impacts 

would be reduced; therefore, when evaluating the cumulative impacts over the entire AOI, these time-area 

closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A and would 

remain the same for active acoustic noise under Alternative B. 

Vessel traffic would increase under the cumulative scenario to support most of the activities. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.4, most commercial fishing operators set their gear according to specific 

habitats (e.g., bottom profile) or water conditions (e.g., Gulf Stream current). Thus, if there are numerous 

vessels transiting through the fishing grounds, it may prevent fishermen from setting their gear in a 

manner that maximizes fishing effort. However, the additional vessel traffic from the cumulative scenario 

would not be a significant increase to existing vessel traffic. Most vessels involved in the cumulative 

scenario would be able to avoid commercial fishing vessels with gear in the water as they would be 

transiting to an offshore location. Therefore, impacts from vessel traffic associated with the cumulative 

scenario are expected to be negligible to commercial fisheries. With the additional time-area closures for 

NARWs and sea turtles, vessel traffic within the additional closure areas would be slightly reduced during 

portions of the year and the timing of seismic airgun surveys would change. However, these additional 

closure areas are very small when compared to the entire AOI and would still result in a negligible 

incremental increase in cumulative impacts to commercial fisheries from vessel traffic.

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Additional time-area closures 

would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts under Alternative B; 

therefore, additional time-area closures for NARWs would not affect the cumulative impacts identified 

under Alternative A and would be unchanged for seafloor disturbance under Alternative B. 

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain areas 

but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on commercial 

fisheries. Therefore, cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be unchanged by limits on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any cumulative impacts to commercial fisheries

determined under Alternative A. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys due to additional time-area closures and 

limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur in 

the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Spills from other survey vessels could also 

occur during the closure period if non-airgun surveys were authorized in accordance with the HRG

Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing due to limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill 

and the potential cumulative impacts on commercial fisheries would be the same under Alternative B as 

determined under Alternative A. 
4-252 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3.8. Recreational Fisheries

Descriptions of the recreational fisheries present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.8.1. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, IPFs for recreational fisheries include (1) active acoustic sound sources 

(i.e., airguns, subbottom profilers, depth sounders, side-scan sonar), (2) vessel traffic, and (3) vessel 

exclusion zones (Table 4-2). Impacts to recreational fisheries under Alternative B would be very similar 

to those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.8.2). The following discussion outlines the 

effects of the additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B on recreational fisheries.

4.3.8.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.8.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, applicable routine IPFs for recreational fisheries are active acoustic

sound sources (i.e., airguns, subbottom profilers, depth sounders, side-scan sonar), vessel traffic, and 

vessel exclusion zones, with impacts ranging from negligible to minor, depending on the IPF.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on recreational fisheries

are expected to range from negligible to minor as they have the potential to directly and indirectly affect 

some recreational fishing activities and recreational fisheries resources within the AOI. The additional 

time-area closure for NARWs would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas within 

the area where most recreational fishing takes place (within 3k-km [20-nmi] of the shore) during certain 

portions of the year. However, during the months when the surveys would not take place in this area 

(November through April), the area is typically not heavily used by recreational fishers because of 

weather conditions. The abundance of recreational fishing takes place during the warmer, calmer months. 

Therefore, the additional time-area closure under Alternative B would not alter the impacts to recreational 

fisheries and would remain negligible to minor. 

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, and the expanded 37 km (20 nmi) closure area 

would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. This Protocol could 

result in altered timing of G&G surveys, which are typically short in duration, but would not be expected 

to change the extent or severity of recreational fishing impacts from survey vessel traffic or vessel 

exclusion zones, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.8.2 as ranging from negligible to minor. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, vessel traffic associated with G&G activities would increase in 

specific areas, thereby increasing the potential for interference with recreational fishing, especially those 

engaged in amateur and professional fishing tournaments. The additional survey vessels could 

temporarily prevent or limit access by recreational fishermen to portions of fishing grounds. However, 

the impacts were determined to be negligible to minor for vessel traffic under Alternative A. In addition, 

the vessel exclusion zones associated with survey vessels and towed equipment could result in loss of 

access to fishing grounds; however, the impact of vessel exclusion zones was determined to be negligible

under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, G&G seismic survey activities would be precluded from the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure area for 6 months of the year, and other non-airgun survey activity may be conducted 

according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which would affect vessel traffic, the potential 

for entanglements, and associated vessel exclusion zones from this area during the closure time period. 

Seasonal recreational fishing activities in this region of the AOI would no longer have the potential for 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-253

additional vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones associated with G&G survey activities during the 

closure period. However, since the additional closure period is not typically a high use time for 

recreational fisheries because of weather, the impacts would remain the same (negligible to minor) for 

vessel traffic and negligible for vessel exclusion zones under Alternative B.

4.3.8.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be conducted according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), 

which would allow HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 

1.6 kHz) year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, within the sea turtle closure area and 

includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, applicable routine IPFs for recreational fisheries are active acoustic

sound sources, vessel traffic, and vessel exclusion zones.

The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in the additional time-area closure area. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized 

in the closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.8.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on recreational fisheries are expected to range 

from negligible to minor. The exclusion of seismic airgun surveys within this area would reduce the 

potential impact to recreational fisheries within this time-area closure area from active acoustic noise

during this period of high fishing activity. However, the additional closure area is very small 

(i.e., 312,765 ac, or 0.15% of the AOI) when compared to the entire AOI; therefore, this change in survey 

timing in the closure area would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys 

on recreational fisheries and would remain negligible to minor. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, vessel traffic associated with all G&G survey activities would 

increase in specific areas, thereby increasing the potential for interference with recreational fishing

operations, especially those engaged in amateur and professional fishing tournaments. The additional 

survey vessels could prevent or limit access by recreational fishermen to portions of fishing grounds; the 

towing of long streamers behind seismic vessels may also result in entanglement of seismic gear with 

recreational fishing gears. The impacts were determined to be negligible to minor for vessel traffic under 

Alternative A. In addition, the vessel exclusion zones associated with survey vessels and towed 

equipment could result in loss of access to fishing grounds; however, the impact was determined to be 

negligible under Alternative A for vessel exclusion zones. 

Under Alternative B, G&G seismic survey activities would be precluded from the additional 11-km 

(5.9-nmi) closure area for 6 months of the year and other survey activity may be precluded according to 

the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which would allow HRG surveys using non-airgun sources 

outside the hearing range of sea turtles (above 1.6 kHz) year-round, including between May 1 and 

October 31, within the sea turtle closure area. This would decrease the vessel traffic during this time-area 

closure for sea turtle nesting. Therefore, recreational fishing activities in this region of the AOI would no 

longer have the potential for additional vessel traffic, the potential for entanglement, and vessel exclusion 

zones associated with G&G survey activities during the closure period. However, since this additional 

closure area is only a very small portion of the AOI (0.15%), the impacts under Alternative B would 

remain the same as determined under Alternative A – negligible to minor for vessel traffic and negligible

for vessel exclusion zones. 

4.3.8.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on 
4-254 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

other marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the site-specific NEPA

and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. BOEM may not 

apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations will also consider 

any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, applicable routine IPFs for recreational fisheries include active 

acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and vessel exclusion zones.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of seismic 

airgun surveys in certain areas; however, the locations cannot be predicted in advance and would depend 

on the schedule and planned coverage of individual surveys. In addition, the limit on concurrent surveys 

has the potential to reduce impacts to recreational fisheries from active acoustic sound sources, vessel 

traffic, and vessel exclusion zones. However, this reduction in impacts would occur only within areas 

where recreational fishing areas are large enough to accommodate more than one survey at a time; very 

few recreational fishing areas in the AOI are this large. Therefore, the impacts to recreational fishing 

from active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and vessel exclusion zones would remain the same for 

Alternative B – negligible to minor for active acoustic sound sources, negligible to minor for vessel 

traffic, and negligible for vessel exclusion zones.

4.3.8.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any recreational 

fisheries impacts analyzed in Chapter 4.2.8.2 (i.e., negligible to minor). 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources – while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain 

unchanged from Alternative A and would range from negligible to minor; (2) vessel traffic – impacts 

would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would range from negligible to minor; and 

(3) vessel exclusion zones – while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts 

would remain unchanged from Alternative A and would be negligible. 

4.3.8.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational fisheries would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.8.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at 

the sea surface would have negligible to minor impacts to recreational fisheries. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from other survey vessels could 

occur during the closure period if non-airgun surveys were authorized in accordance with the HRG

Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic 

airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small 

fuel spill and the potential impacts on recreational fisheries would be the same as under Alternative A and 

would range from negligible to minor. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-255

4.3.8.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.8.1 and 4.3.8.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts ranging from negligible to minor to recreational 

fisheries, depending on the activity, as a result of active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and vessel 

exclusion zones. These IPFs would also contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under 

Alternative B. The cumulative activities scenario for recreational fisheries, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.8.4, includes (1) oil and gas development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine 

minerals use, (4) geosequestration, (5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, 

(7) military range complexes and civilian space program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, 

(9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact

sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative 

vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified only small incremental increases in impacts

from all IPFs under Alternative A. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas.

As described in Chapter 4.2.8.2, because there are no significant noise impacts evident from the 

cumulative activities scenario, and there is no evidence of ambient noise levels approaching a threshold 

level where recreational fisheries might be significantly affected, it is expected that the incremental 

increase in cumulative impacts to recreational fisheries associated with Alternative A would be negligible. 

The additional time-area closures would decrease the active acoustic noise in the closure areas, which are 

the highest primary use areas for recreational fishing (within 37-km [20-nmi] from shore) for portions of 

the year. However, because of the weather, the time that the area is closed to seismic airgun surveys is 

not the high use season for recreational fishing in most of the closure area. In addition, the total 

additional closure areas are only a very small portion of the entire AOI (6,647,370 ac, or 3.3%) where 

recreational fishing impacts would be reduced. Therefore, when evaluating the cumulative impacts over 

the entire AOI, these time-area closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted 

under Alternative A.

Vessel traffic would increase under the cumulative scenario to support most of the activities. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.8.2, most recreational fishing operators set their gear according to specific 

habitats (e.g., bottom profile) or water conditions (e.g., Gulf Stream current). Thus, if there are numerous 

vessels transiting through popular fishing grounds, it may prevent fishermen from setting their gear. 

However, there is no evidence of vessel traffic levels approaching a threshold level where recreational 

fisheries might be significantly affected. Most vessels involved in the cumulative scenario would be able 

to avoid recreational fishing vessels as they would be transiting to an offshore location; therefore, impacts 

from vessel traffic associated with the cumulative scenario are expected to range from negligible to minor 

for recreational fisheries. With the additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles, vessel traffic 

within the additional closure areas would be slightly reduced during portions of the year and the timing of 

seismic airgun surveys would change. However, because of the weather, the additional closure time for 

NARWs does not occur at a peak time for recreational fishers. Further, these additional closure areas are 

very small when compared to the entire AOI. Therefore, cumulative impacts to recreational fisheries 

would remain negligible to minor from vessel traffic and negligible for vessel exclusion zones.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain areas 

but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on recreational 

fisheries. Therefore, cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be unchanged by limits on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any cumulative impacts to recreational fisheries

determined under Alternative A. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Spills from other non-airgun survey vessels 

could also occur during the closure period if surveys were conducted according to the HRG Survey 

Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun 

surveys would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill 

and the potential cumulative impacts on recreational fisheries would be the same under Alternative B as 

determined under Alternative A. 
4-256 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3.9. Recreational Resources

Descriptions of the recreational resources present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.9.1. As 

outlined in Chapter 4.2.9.2, the IPFs identified for recreational resources include (1) vessel exclusion 

zones and (2) trash and debris (Table 4-2). Impacts to recreational resources under Alternative B would 

be very similar to those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.9.2). The following 

discussion outlines the effect of the additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B on 

recreational resources.

4.3.9.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.9.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.9.2, there are two applicable routine IPFs for recreational resources

(vessel exclusion zones and trash and debris) which are expected to result in impacts ranging from 

negligible to minor, depending on the location. Impact of trash and debris on recreational resources is 

expected to be minimized through required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE 

guidance; therefore, impacts would be unchanged under Alternative B (negligible to minor), depending 

on location.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys and the associated acoustic exclusion zones in the time-closure areas, which total 

approximately 13,925,160 ac (5,635,312 ha), or 6.6 percent of the total AOI. Seismic airgun surveys 

would not be authorized in the additional 20-nmi closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 

and North Carolina between November 1 and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area 

offshore Florida between November 15 and April 15.

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area 

would comply with the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation

and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. The additional time-area closure for 

NARWs under Alternative B would not significantly alter the recreational opportunities since the closure 

times in most of the AOI are not high use times for recreational opportunities because of weather. Most 

recreational use within the AOI would occur during the warmer and calmer spring and summer months, 

which would not change under Alternative B; therefore, the impacts to recreational resources from 

acoustic exclusion zones would still be expected to be negligible. 

4.3.9.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during that time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be performed in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2), which would allow HRG surveys using non-airgun sources outside the hearing range 

of sea turtles (above 1.6 kHz) year-round, including between May 1 and October 31, and includes 

additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.9.2, there are two applicable routine IPFs for recreational resources

(vessel exclusion zones and trash and debris), which resulted in negligible to minor impacts. Impacts of 

trash and debris on recreational resources is expected to be minimized through required compliance with 

USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts would be expected to remain 

unchanged under Alternative B (negligible to minor), depending on location.

The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys and the associated acoustic exclusion zones in the additional closure area. Seismic airgun 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-257

surveys would not be authorized in the closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 

through October 31. The additional time-area closure for sea turtles under Alternative B would reduce 

the potential for acoustic exclusion zones that limit recreational opportunities. However, this time-area 

closure is only 312,765 ac (126,572 ha), or only 0.15 percent of the total AOI; therefore, this minor 

reduction of impacts within this small area would not result in a change in the impact identified under 

Alternative A. Impacts to recreational resources under Alternative B would be expected to remain 

negligible. 

4.3.9.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012). Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the sitespecific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. 

BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations 

will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.9.2, there are two applicable routine IPFs for recreational resources

(vessel exclusion zones and trash and debris) that resulted in negligible to minor impacts, depending on 

location. Impact of trash and debris on recreational resources is expected to be minimized through 

required compliance with USCG and USEPA regulations and BSEE guidance; therefore, impacts would 

be expected to remain unchanged under Alternative B (i.e., negligible to minor), depending on location.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.9.2, a typical vessel exclusion zone for a 2D or 3D survey involving a 

towed array would be approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) long and 1.2 km (0.6 nmi) wide, covering a total of 

1,021 ha (2,520 ac) of the sea surface. The length of time that any particular point would be within the 

vessel exclusion zone would be about 1 hr. The limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would spread 

out the spatial extent of these vessel exclusion zones and would reduce the potential for an additive vessel 

exclusion zone within one area. However, the same vessel exclusion zone areas for recreational activities 

would still be present within the AOI. This potential small incremental decrease in impact from removal 

of the potential of an additive vessel exclusion zone in one area would remain unchanged under 

Alternative B; impacts to recreational resources from concurrent seismic survey limits would be expected 

to remain the same as identified under Alternative A (i.e., negligible), depending on location.

4.3.9.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. Since there are no acoustic exclusion zones associated 

with the use of PAM, the impact to recreational resources analyzed in Chapter 4.2.9.2 (i.e., negligible) 

would not be expected to change.

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) vessel exclusion zones – 

while impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from 
4-258 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Alternative A and would be negligible; and (2) trash and debris – impacts would remain unchanged and 

would range from negligible to minor. 

4.3.9.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational resources would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.9.3). In the event of a spill, the potential does 

exist for fuel released to be carried to recreational areas by waves and currents (i.e., if the accident occurs 

close to shore) resulting in the potential for a short-term interference with recreational opportunities 

would be expected to result in a negligible to minor impacts, depending on the location of the spill.

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from other vessels could occur 

during the closure period depending on the frequency of the HRG source used. A change in survey 

timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially change the risk of a 

small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on recreational resources

from Alternative B would be the same as under Alternative A and would be expected to range from 

negligible to minor, depending on the location of the spill. 

4.3.9.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.9.1 and 4.3.9.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in negligible to minor impacts to recreational resources. The 

cumulative activities scenario for recreational resources, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.9.4, includes (1) oil 

and gas development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine minerals use, (4) geosequestration; 

(5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, (7) military range complexes and civilian 

space program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, (9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new 

cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; 

(2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs that would contribute to the 

cumulative activities scenario under Alternative B include vessel exclusion zone, trash and debris, and 

accidental fuel spills. The cumulative impact analysis identified negligible incremental increases in 

impacts from these IPFs under Alternative A. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Overall, however, these timearea closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. 

Therefore, impacts would be unchanged under the cumulative scenario for Alternative B for all IPFs.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain areas 

but would not alter the impacts to recreational resources; therefore, the impacts would remain unchanged 

under the Alternative B cumulative scenario. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be 

unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys for all IPFs.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change cumulative impacts to recreational resources

determined under Alternative A. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, as discussed in Chapter 4.2.9.4, a significant 

amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario. All vessel movements are 

associated with a risk of collision and subsequent loss of fuel. The risk of accidental fuel spills arising 

from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario is expected to range from negligible to minor. A 

change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially 

change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential cumulative

impacts to recreational resources would be the same under Alternative B as determined under 

Alternative A and would result in a negligible incremental increase in risk of a collision-based fuel spill. 

Therefore, the impacts to recreational resources from spill response and cleanup activities associated with 

fuel spills from vessels under the cumulative activities scenario are expected to range from negligible to 

minor, depending on the location of the spill.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-259

4.3.10. Archaeological Resources

Descriptions of the archaeological resources present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.10.1. 

As outlined in Chapter 4.2.10.2, IPFs for archaeological resources included (1) seafloor disturbance, and 

(2) drilling discharges (Table 4-2). Impacts to archaeological resources under Alternative B would be 

very similar to those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.10.2). The following 

discussion outlines the effect of the additional mitigation measures included in Alternative B on 

archaeological resources.

4.3.10.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.10.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.10.2, there are two applicable routine IPFs for archaeological resources

– seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges, both of which are expected to result in a negligible impact. 

This impact determination is based on the avoidance of archaeological resources, which is based on the 

protective measures outlined in Chapter 4.2.10.2. 

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in the time-closure areas, which total approximately 6,334,605 ac (2,563,528 ha), or only 

3.0 percent of the total AOI. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15. The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not change the 

extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance or drilling discharges; therefore, the impacts to 

archaeological resources from seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges would still be expected to be 

negligible. 

4.3.10.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during that time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be performed in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce 

impacts on sea turtles. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.10.2, there are two applicable routine IPFs for archaeological resources

– seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges, both of which resulted in a negligible impact. 

The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in the additional closure area. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the 

closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. The additional time-area 

closure for sea turtles under Alternative B would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor 

disturbance or drilling discharge impacts; therefore, impacts would remain the same as those analyzed in 

Chapter 4.2.10.2 (negligible). 

4.3.10.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 
4-260 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012). Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the sitespecific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. 

BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations 

will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.10.2, there are two applicable routine IPFs for archaeological resources

– seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges, both of which resulted in a negligible impact. The limit on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B would not change the extent, severity, or timing of 

seafloor disturbance impacts, and therefore impacts would remain the same as those analyzed in 

Chapter 4.2.10.2 for archaeological resources (negligible). 

4.3.10.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any impacts to 

archaeological resources analyzed in Chapter 4.2.10.2. Impacts would remain negligible.

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) seafloor disturbance – 

impacts would remain unchanged and would be negligible; and (2) drilling discharges – impacts would 

remain unchanged and would be negligible. 

4.3.10.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on archaeological resources would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A in Chapter 4.2.10.3. Since there is the potential for a small 

proportion of the heavier fuel components to adhere to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water 

column and sink, particulate matter contaminated with diesel fuel could eventually reach the seafloor; an 

accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to result in negligible impacts to archaeological resources.

4.3.10.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.10.1 and 4.3.10.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in negligible impacts to archaeological resources. The cumulative 

activities scenario and the potential for impact to archaeological resources, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.10.4, includes (1) oil and gas development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine 

minerals use, (4) geosequestration, (5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, 

(7) military range complexes and civilian space program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, 

(9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact 

sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative 

vessel activity. The IPFs that would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative B 

include seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuel spills. The cumulative impact 

analysis identified negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts from these IPFs under 

Alternative A. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Overall, however, these 

time-area closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. 

Therefore, impacts would be unchanged under the cumulative scenario for Alternative B for all IPFs.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-261

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain areas 

but would not alter the impacts to archaeological resources; therefore, the impacts would remain 

unchanged under the Alternative B cumulative scenario. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B would 

be unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys for all IPFs.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change cumulative impacts to archaeological resources

determined under Alternative A. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, as discussed in Chapter 4.2.10.4, a 

significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario. All vessel 

movements are associated with a risk of collision and subsequent loss of fuel. The risk of accidental fuel 

spills arising from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario is expected to range from negligible to 

minor. A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not 

substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential

cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be the same under Alternative B as determined 

under Alternative A and would result in a negligible incremental increase in risk of a collision-based fuel 

spill. Seafloor-disturbing activities associated with spill cleanup are not expected. Therefore, the impacts 

to archaeological resources from spill response and cleanup activities associated with fuel spills from 

vessels under the cumulative activities scenario are expected to range from negligible to minor. 

4.3.11. Marine Protected Areas

Descriptions of the MPAs present in the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.11.1. As outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.11.2, IPFs for MPAs include (1) active acoustic sound sources (e.g., airguns; 

electromechanical sources including subbottom profilers, depth sounders, and side-scan sonar); (2) trash

and debris; (3) seafloor disturbance; and (4) drilling discharges. These IPFs are based on potential 

impacts to the resources that are present with the MPAs, including benthic communities, marine 

mammals, sea turtles, marine and coastal birds, and fishery resources. As a consequence, the evaluation 

of impacts to MPAs reflects impact designations for these other resources. Impacts to MPAs under 

Alternative B would be very similar to those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.11.2). 

The following discussion outlines the effects of the additional mitigation measures included in 

Alternative B on MPAs.

4.3.11.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.11.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37 km 

(20 nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.11.2, applicable routine IPFs for MPAs are active acoustic sound 

sources, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, and drilling discharges. 

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in the time-closure areas, which total approximately 6,334,605 ac (2,563,528 ha), or only 

3.0 percent of the total AOI. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.11.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources from 

Alternative A on MPAs are expected to be negligible, minor, or moderate, depending on the resource 

present in the MPA. Impacts to benthic communities, marine and coastal birds, and recreational resources

were all expected to be negligible, whereas impacts to marine mammals and fisheries resources and EFH

were expected to be minor. Impacts on sea turtles are expected to be negligible or minor, except in inner 

shelf waters within the southern part of the AOI during sea turtle nesting season, where impacts may 

range from negligible to moderate depending on how severely nesting activities are affected. This 

additional time-area closure would preclude surveys in the coastal and nearshore waters that encompass 
4-262 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

the NMSs (e.g., Gray’s Reef NMS and Monitor NMS) and the coastal MPAs for half of the year, which 

would reduce the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on MPAs and the 

resources present in particular marine mammals, sea turtles, and fishes and EFH. However, the impacts 

to MPAs from active acoustic sound sources would still be expected to be negligible, minor, or 

moderate, depending on the resource.

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not change the extent, 

severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts. Impacts would still be expected to be avoided or 

limited in most MPAs, resulting in negligible to minor impacts to benthic communities, fisheries

resources and EFH, sea turtles, marine mammals, and submerged archaeological or cultural resources. 

No impacts to sea turtles and marine mammals are expected from seafloor-disturbing activities in 

deepwater MPAs or other Federal fishery management areas.

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area 

would be performed according to the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. This Protocol could 

result in altered timing of G&G surveys but would not be expected to change the extent or severity of 

impacts to MPAs and the associated resources, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.11.2 as negligible for 

most NMS resources, including benthic communities, marine and coastal birds, and recreational 

resources, while minor impacts are projected for marine mammals and fisheries resources and EFH, and 

negligible, minor, or moderate impacts are expected for sea turtles, depending upon location and season.

Under the additional time-area closure, impacts from trash and debris and drilling discharges would 

remain unchanged from Alternative A. 

4.3.11.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be performed in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 

2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on 

sea turtles. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.11.2, applicable routine IPFs for MPAs are active acoustic sound 

sources, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, and drilling discharges. 

The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in the additional closure areas, which is only 312,765 ac (126,572 ha), or only 0.15 percent 

of the total AOI. While this represents a small percentage of the AOI, the time-area closure does focus on 

key sea turtle nesting locations along the northeast Florida coast. Seismic airgun surveys would not be 

authorized in the closure area offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. As 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.11.2, impacts from active acoustic sound sources for Alternative A would be 

expected to be negligible, minor, or moderate, depending on the resource. However, this mitigation

measure would significantly reduce potential impact levels from seismic airguns within the important 

north Florida sea turtle nesting area, resulting in a decrease in the impacts to MPAs to negligible to 

minor. A change in survey timing in the closure area would reduce the impacts of active acoustic noise

from seismic airgun surveys on MPAs and the associated resources (especially nesting sea turtles and 

hatchlings) within the Merritt Island NWR, Archie Carr NWR, and the Canaveral National Seashore.

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, other non-airgun surveys (e.g., electromechanical 

sources) in the closure area would be performed in accordance with the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce 

impacts on sea turtles. This Protocol could result in altered timing of some G&G surveys in this area but 

would not be expected to change the extent or severity of impacts from electromechanical sound to MPAs 

or the associated resources, which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.11.2 as negligible to minor, depending 

on the resource.

The additional time-area closure for sea turtles under Alternative B would not change the extent, 

severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts in MPAs, therefore impacts would remain the same as 

those analyzed in Chapter 4.2.11.2. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-263

Under the additional time-area closure, impacts from trash and debris and drilling discharges would 

remain unchanged from Alternative A. 

4.3.11.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012), yet it is unknown if detection of sound at these distances has any effect on 

marine mammals or other marine species. Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at 

the site-specific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that 

time. BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent 

evaluations will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.11.2, applicable routine IPFs for MPAs are active acoustic sound 

sources, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, and drilling discharges. 

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of these 

surveys in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance and would depend on the schedule, 

planned coverage of individual surveys, and ports to be used for support activities. As discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.11.2, impacts of active acoustic sound sources on MPAs are expected to range from 

negligible to moderate, depending on the resource. A change in survey timing because of limits on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the impacts from either active acoustic sound on MPAs 

or the associated resources present.

The limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B would not change the extent, 

severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts in MPAs, and therefore impacts would remain the 

same as those analyzed in Chapter 4.2.11.2. 

4.3.11.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not be expected to change any 

impacts to MPAs or the resources present analyzed in Chapter 4.2.11.2. 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) active acoustic sound 

sources –impacts would be reduced because of the sea turtle time-area closure, resulting in the overall 

impacts ranging from negligible to minor; (2) trash and debris – while impacts would be reduced due to 

time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from Alternative A and would be negligible; 

(3) seafloor disturbance – impacts would remain unchanged and would be negligible; and (4) drilling 

discharges – impacts would remain unchanged and would be negligible. 

4.3.11.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on MPAs and the associated resources present 

would be very similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.11.3). The analysis concluded 
4-264 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

that a small spill at the sea surface would be unlikely to affect benthic communities, sea turtles, and 

marine mammals in MPAs; however, impacts to marine and coastal birds, recreational resources, and 

archaeological resources could range from negligible to moderate, depending on the location of the spill. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from other survey vessels could 

occur during the closure period if surveys were authorized under the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys 

would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the 

potential impacts on MPAs and the resources present would be the same as under Alternative A and 

would range from negligible to moderate, depending on the location of the spill and the resources 

affected. 

4.3.11.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.11.1 and 4.3.11.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts ranging from negligible to moderate for MPAs and 

the associated resources present, depending on the activity, as a result of active acoustic sound sources, 

seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. The cumulative activities scenario for MPAs, as outlined 

in Chapter 4.2.11.4, includes (1) oil and gas development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine 

minerals use, (4) geosequestration, (5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, 

(7) military range complexes and civilian space program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, 

(9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact

sources also were identified: (1) climate change, (2) cumulative noise in the sea, and (3) cumulative 

vessel activity. The IPFs that would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative B 

include active acoustic sound sources, seafloor disturbance, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. 

The cumulative impact analysis identified negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts from all 

IPFs under Alternative A. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Overall, however, these 

time-area closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. 

Therefore, impacts would be unchanged under the cumulative scenario for Alternative B for all IPFs.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain areas 

but would not alter the impacts of active acoustic noise from seismic airgun surveys on MPAs and the 

resources present. Therefore, the impacts to MPAs and the associated resources would remain unchanged 

under the Alternative B cumulative scenario. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be 

unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys for all IPFs.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any MPA cumulative impacts determined under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Spills from other survey vessels could also 

occur during the closure period if surveys were authorized under the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys 

would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the 

potential cumulative impacts to MPAs and the associated resources would be the same under 

Alternative B as determined under Alternative A and would result in a negligible incremental increase in 

risk of a collision-based fuel spill. Therefore, the cumulative impacts from a small spill at the sea surface 

would be unlikely to affect benthic communities, sea turtles, and marine mammals in MPAs; however, 

impacts to marine and coastal birds, recreational resources, and archaeological resources could range 

from negligible to minor, depending on the location of the spill. 

4.3.12. Other Marine Uses

Descriptions of the other marine uses occurring within the AOI were provided in Chapter 4.2.12.1. 

As outlined in Chapter 4.2.12.2, IPFs for other marine uses include (1) vessel traffic, (2) aircraft traffic
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-265

and noise, (3) vessel exclusion zones, and (4) seafloor disturbance. Impacts to other marine uses under 

Alternative B would be very similar to those previously described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.12.2). 

As with Alternative A, Alternative B would still include military or NASA coordination as a condition of 

permit approval (i.e., similar to NTL 2009-G06, the military coordination lease stipulation in effect in the 

Gulf of Mexico) (Chapter 2.1.2.5). A conditioned approval of this type would require the G&G operator 

to contact designated DoD or NASA personnel identified for the purpose to be notified of the nature and 

schedule for any pending G&G activity planned within military range complexes or NASA’s use areas. 

The following discussion outlines the effects of the additional mitigation measures included in 

Alternative B on other marine uses.

4.3.12.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.12.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, applicable routine IPFs for other marine uses are vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones, aircraft traffic and noise, and seafloor disturbance. The additional time-area 

closure for NARWs under Alternative B would not change the extent, severity, or timing of aircraft traffic 

and noise and seafloor disturbance impacts, therefore impacts would be unchanged under Alternative B. 

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B would change the timing of vessel 

traffic and vessel exclusion zones in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys and therefore the vessel traffic 

and vessel exclusion zones associated with the surveys would not be authorized in the additional 37-km 

(20-nmi) closure areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina between November 1 

and April 30, or in the additional 37-km (20-nmi) closure area offshore Florida between November 15 

and April 15. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones on 

other marine uses are expected to be negligible in all cases other than the potential for minor impacts 

from vessel traffic on small ports. The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B 

described above would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas and reduce the vessel 

traffic and vessel exclusion zones related to these surveys in the coastal areas during certain times of the 

year when compared to Alternative A. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas would 

potentially reduce the impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones from seismic airgun surveys on 

other marine uses since these surveys would not occur within the coastal waters for half of the year; 

therefore, the impacts to other marine uses would be expected to be negligible. 

Under the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys in NARW critical habitat area, in 

the SMAs, and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area would be performed in compliance with the 

HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring

requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on NARWs. This Protocol could result in altered timing of some 

G&G surveys but would not be expected to change the extent or severity of impacts to other marine uses, 

which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.12.2 as negligible. 

4.3.12.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31), resulting in a change of the 

timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. No airgun surveys would be authorized within the 

closure area during that time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, including HRG surveys, 

would be performed in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes 

additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, applicable routine IPFs for other marine uses are vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones, aircraft traffic and noise, and seafloor disturbance. The additional time-area 

closure for sea turtles under Alternative B would not change the extent, severity, or timing of aircraft 
4-266 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

traffic and noise and seafloor disturbance impacts, therefore impacts would be unchanged under 

Alternative B.

Impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones on other marine uses are expected to be 

negligible in all cases other than the potential for minor impacts from vessel traffic to small ports. The 

additional time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B described above would change the 

timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas and reduce the vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones

related to these surveys in the coastal areas during certain times of the year when compared to 

Alternative A. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas would potentially reduce the 

impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones from seismic airgun surveys on other marine uses 

since these surveys would not occur within the coastal waters for half of the year; therefore, impacts to 

other marine uses would be expected to be negligible. 

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, other non-airgun surveys in the closure area would 

be performed in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles. This Protocol could 

result in altered timing of some G&G surveys, including those involving seafloor disturbance, but it 

would not be expected to change the extent or severity of vessel traffic or vessel exclusion zones, both of 

which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.12.2 as negligible. 

The sea turtle time-area closure would overlap with the NARW time-area closure (November 15 

through April 15 for NARWs and May 1 through October 31 for sea turtles) and would change the timing 

of seismic airgun surveys in this closure area. This would result in a further reduction of vessel traffic

and vessel exclusion zones related to seismic airgun surveys in the coastal areas during certain times of 

the year when compared to Alternative A since these surveys would not occur within the coastal waters 

for half of the year in this small area. Overall, the impacts to other marine uses from vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones under Alternative B would be negligible. 

4.3.12.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012). Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the sitespecific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. 

BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations 

will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, applicable routine IPFs for other marine uses are vessel traffic and 

vessel exclusion zones, aircraft traffic and noise, and seafloor disturbance. Limits on concurrent seismic

airgun surveys would not change the extent, severity, or timing of aircraft traffic and noise and seafloor 

disturbance.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of these 

surveys in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance but would depend on the schedule 

and planned coverage of individual surveys. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, impacts of vessel traffic

and vessel exclusion zones on other marine uses are expected to be negligible in all cases other than the 

potential for minor impacts from vessel traffic to small ports. A change in survey timing due to limits on 

concurrent seismic airgun surveys would potentially reduce the amount of vessel traffic and vessel 

exclusion zones within a specific area. Additionally, the separation distance of 40 km (25 mi) may be 

large enough to reduce impacts from vessel traffic and exclusions zones by resulting in a further 

separation of G&G activities (i.e., the use of different ports).

4.3.12.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-267

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any impacts to other 

marine uses analyzed in Chapter 4.2.12.2. 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include (1) vessel traffic – while 

impacts would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from 

Alternative A and would range from negligible to minor; (2) vessel exclusion zones – while impacts 

would be reduced due to time-area closures, overall impacts would remain unchanged from Alternative A 

and would range from negligible to minor; (3) aircraft traffic and noise– impacts would remain 

unchanged and would be negligible; and (4) seafloor disturbance – impacts would remain unchanged and 

would be negligible. 

4.3.12.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of accidental collisions or fuel spills on other marine uses would be 

very similar to those analyzed for Alternative A in Chapter 4.2.12.3. The analysis concluded that 

mitigation measures including planning and implementing vessel exclusion zones, vessel-to-vessel 

communication, and issuance of warnings to mariners would limit the likelihood of a vessel-to-vessel 

collision or another vessel becoming entangled in towed G&G equipment and that a small spill at the sea 

surface would be unlikely to have any effect on other marine uses. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from other survey vessels could 

occur during the closure period if surveys were performed in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys 

would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of an accidental fuel spill 

and the potential impacts on other marine uses would be the same as under Alternative A and would be 

negligible. 

4.3.12.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.3.12.1 and 4.3.12.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in negligible impacts to other marine uses. The cumulative 

activities scenario for other marine uses, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.12.4, includes the following: (1) oil 

and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; 

(5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian 

space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new 

cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; 

(2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs that would contribute to the 

cumulative activities scenario under Alternative B include vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones, 

aircraft traffic and noise, seafloor disturbance, and accidental fuel spills. The cumulative impact analysis 

identified negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Overall, however, these timearea closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. Under the 

cumulative scenario, vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones would see a negligible incremental 

increase. This additional time-area closure would not change the extent, severity, or timing of seafloor 

disturbance impacts or the associated vessel traffic; therefore, the impacts to other marine uses from 

seafloor disturbance and vessel traffic would remain unchanged under the cumulative scenario for 
4-268 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Alternative B. Impacts would be unchanged (negligible incremental increase) under the cumulative 

scenario for Alternative B for all IPFs except accidental fuel spills. 

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would change the timing of these surveys in certain 

areas, and would likely reduce the impacts of vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones related to seismic 

airgun surveys on other marine uses. In addition, these concurrent survey limits would not change the 

extent, severity, or timing of seafloor disturbance impacts, nor would they change associated vessel 

traffic; therefore, the impacts to other marine uses would result in a negligible impact under the 

Alternative B cumulative scenario. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be unchanged 

(negligible) by limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys for all IPFs except accidental fuel spills. 

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any other marine uses cumulative impacts as 

determined under Alternative A. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Spills from other survey vessels could also 

occur during the closure period if surveys were authorized in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2). A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys 

would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the 

potential cumulative impacts to other marine uses would be the same under Alternative B as determined 

under Alternative A and would result in a negligible incremental increase in risk and associated impacts 

of a collision-based fuel spill.

4.3.13. Human Resources and Land Use

Descriptions of the human resources and land use present adjacent to the AOI were provided in 

Chapter 4.2.13.1. As outlined in Chapter 4.2.13.2, IPFs for human resources and land use include 

potential effects of onshore support activities (Table 4-2). Impacts to human resources and land use 

under Alternative B would be very similar to those previously described for Alternative A

(Chapter 4.2.13.2). The following discussion outlines the effects of the additional mitigation measures 

included in Alternative B on human resources and land use.

4.3.13.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

4.3.13.1.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for NARWs would be expanded to a continuous 37-km 

(20-nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The expanded 

closure zone would fill gaps in coverage between Delaware Bay and Wilmington, North Carolina, where 

the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA is discontinuous. It would also cover areas offshore Florida adjacent to the 

NARW critical habitat between the Southeast U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI. Under 

the additional time-area closure, non-airgun G&G surveys in NARW critical habitat area, in the SMAs, 

and the expanded 37-km (20-nmi) closure area would be performed in compliance with the HRG Survey 

Protocol, which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on 

NARWs. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.13.2, the only applicable routine IPF for human resources and land use

is onshore support activities. The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B and the 

implementation of the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2) would not change the projected demands 

for shore base space, supplies, and services related to G&G activities, and therefore impacts would be 

unchanged under Alternative B. The use of existing ports and their associated shore bases is expected to 

have no or negligible land use conflicts with current land uses and land use plans. Overall, the impacts to 

human resources and land use from onshore support activities from Alternative B would be negligible. 

The additional time-area closure for NARWs under Alternative B described above would change the 

timing of seismic airgun surveys in the coastal areas during certain times of the year when compared to 

Alternative A. A change in survey timing in the additional closure areas would not change the projected 

demands for shore base space, supplies, and services related to G&G activities, therefore the impacts to 

other human resources and land use would be expected to be negligible. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-269

4.3.13.1.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard County, 

Florida, during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31). No airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during this time. Other non-airgun surveys in the closure area, 

including HRG surveys, would be performed in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol 

(Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce 

impacts on sea turtles. 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.13.2, applicable routine IPFs for human resources and land use are 

potential effects of onshore support activities. The additional time-area closure for sea turtle nesting 

under Alternative B would not change the projected demands for shore base space, supplies, and services 

related to G&G activities.

The time-area closure for sea turtle nesting under Alternative B would change the timing of seismic

airgun surveys in certain areas. Seismic airgun surveys would not be authorized in the closure area 

offshore Brevard County, Florida, from May 1 through October 31. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.13.2, 

impacts of onshore support activities on human resources and land use are expected to be negligible. A 

change in survey timing in the closure area would not alter the impacts of seismic airgun surveys on 

human resources and land use.

Under the time-area closure for sea turtle nesting, other non-airgun surveys in the closure area would 

be performed in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2), which includes additional 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on sea turtles. This Protocol could 

result in altered timing of some G&G surveys including those involving onshore support activities but 

would not be expected to change the projected demands for shore base space, supplies, and services, 

which are evaluated in Chapter 4.2.13.2 as negligible. 

4.3.13.1.3. Limits on Concurrent Seismic Airgun Surveys

Alternative B would establish a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep penetration seismic airgun surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at the same time. 

It is anticipated that through the adaptive management approach outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 that this 

separation distance may be modified based on newly available information and in consideration of any 

other surveys requested or authorized to operate concurrently. New information suggests that, in some 

circumstances, airgun noise can be detected at great distances from the sound source, such as across ocean 

basins (Nieukirk et al., 2012). Therefore, BOEM will consider the value of this measure at the sitespecific NEPA and environmental analyses level, as well as any new information available at that time. 

BOEM may not apply this specific mitigation measure programmatically. These subsequent evaluations 

will also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any).

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.13.2, the only applicable routine IPF for human resources and land use

is onshore support activities. Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not change the projected 

demands for shore base space, supplies, and services related to G&G activities. The use of existing ports 

and their associated shore bases is expected to have no or negligible land use conflicts with current land 

uses and land use plans, and therefore impacts would be unchanged by limits on concurrent seismic 

airgun surveys.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys under Alternative B could change the timing of these 

surveys in certain areas. The locations cannot be predicted in advance but would depend on the schedule 

and planned coverage of individual surveys. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.13.2, impacts of onshore 

support activities on human resources and land use are expected to be negligible. A change in survey 

timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not alter the impacts on human 

resources and land use.

4.3.13.1.4. Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Alternative B includes the required use of PAM in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol to improve 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals. If BOEM approves nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective 
4-270 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

monitoring technologies. Those technologies may include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment/and or PAM. The use of PAM would not change any human resource

and land uses analyzed in Chapter 4.2.13.2. 

Summary

Alternative B includes four components that differentiate this alternative from Alternative A: (1) an 

additional time-area closure for NARWs; (2) an additional time-area closure for sea turtles; 

(3) establishment of a 40-km (25-mi) separation distance between simultaneously operating 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys; and (4) required use of PAM as part of the Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol. Impact determinations by IPF under Alternative B include onshore support activity – 

impacts would remain unchanged and would be negligible. 

4.3.13.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative B, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on human resources and land use would be 

very similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.13.3). The analysis concluded that a small 

spill would be likely to have minimal to no impact to either the local economies or populations of ports 

and surrounding communities. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur 

in the closure areas during times outside the closure period. Also, spills from other survey vessels could 

occur during the closure period if surveys were performed in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol. 

A change in survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially 

change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on 

human resources and land use would be the same as under Alternative A and would be negligible. 

4.3.13.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapter 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.12.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative B would result in impacts to human resources and land use ranging from 

negligible to minor, depending on the activity, as a result of potential effects of onshore support activities 

and accidental fuel spills. These IPFs would also contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under 

Alternative B. The cumulative activities scenario for human resources and land use, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.13.4, includes (1) oil and gas development, (2) renewable energy development, (3) marine 

minerals use, (4) geosequestration, (5) LNG terminals, (6) commercial and recreational fishing, 

(7) military range complexes and civilian space program use, (8) shipping and marine transportation, 

(9) dredged material disposal, and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact 

sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative 

vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified no or negligible cumulative impacts associated 

from all IPFs under Alternative A. 

The additional time-area closures for NARWs and sea turtles included in Alternative B, as discussed 

above, would change the timing of seismic airgun surveys in certain areas. Overall, however, these timearea closures would not appreciably change the cumulative impacts noted under Alternative A. 

Additional time-area closures would not change the projected demands for shore base space, supplies, and 

services under Alternative B and therefore would not affect the cumulative impacts identified under 

Alternative A, so impacts would be unchanged (negligible) under the cumulative scenario for 

Alternative B.

Limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not change the projected demands for shore base 

space, supplies, and services related to G&G activities. The use of existing ports and their associated 

shore bases is expected to have no or negligible land use conflicts with current land uses and land use 

plans, and therefore cumulative impacts under Alternative B would be unchanged (negligible) by limits 

on concurrent seismic airgun surveys.

The use of PAM in Alternative B would not change any human resource and land use cumulative 

impacts determined under Alternative A. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-271

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including 

high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. The impact of accidental fuel spills arising from a vessel collision under the 

cumulative scenario is expected to be negligible. 

Alternative B would change the timing of certain surveys because of additional time-area closures 

and limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys, which would result in a reduction of vessel traffic and 

onshore support activities related to these surveys in the coastal areas during certain times of the year 

when compared to Alternative A. However, spills from seismic survey vessels could occur in the closure 

areas during times outside the closure period. Spills from other survey vessels could also occur during 

the closure period if surveys were performed in compliance with the HRG Survey Protocol. A change in 

survey timing because of limits on concurrent seismic airgun surveys would not substantially change the 

risk of a small fuel spill. The impacts to local economies or populations of the ports and surrounding 

communities from spill response and cleanup activities would be the same under Alternative B as 

determined under Alternative A.

4.4. ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION FOR OIL AND GAS G&G ACTIVITY, STATUS 

QUO FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY AND MARINE MINERALS G&G ACTIVITY

Under Alternative C, no G&G activities associated with oil and gas exploration (except for remote 

sensing from satellites) would occur in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. Oil and gas survey 

activity represents a significant proportion of the total line km of G&G activity under Alternative A, 

including 616,174 line km of 2D streamer surveys, 2,500 blocks of 3D streamer surveys (or 

120,000 line km, assuming 48 line km [30 line mi] per block), and 900 line km of 3D WAZ surveys; in 

total, oil and gas G&G surveys represent about 3,750 days of vessel activity over the 2012-2020 period. 

By comparison, the renewable energy program is expected to conduct 4,255 days of HRG survey vessel 

activity and as many as 9,969 vessel trips for coring operations between 2012 and 2020. Under the 

marine minerals program, HRG surveys would require 180 operational survey days while bottom 

sampling operations may utilize as many as 615 days during this period (Chapter 3.5.1.3). 

Postlease G&G activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals use would continue 

to occur on a case-by-case basis under Alternative C. At a programmatic level, while there are no 

mitigation measures that apply to G&G activities conducted in support of renewable energy development, 

best management practices were documented in the Programmatic EIS for the renewable energy program. 

In addition, through the NEPA process (e.g., EIS or EA), BOEM may identify mitigation measures to 

avoid/minimize environmental impacts during G&G surveys. Mitigation measures may be implemented 

as a condition for OCS plan approval. Additional mitigation measures may be required as a result of 

consultations under the ESA or MMPA.

Similarly, at a programmatic level, there are no mitigation measures that apply to G&G activities 

under the marine minerals program. Under Section 11 of the OCSLA, BOEM may authorize G&G 

prospecting for non-energy marine minerals, except in the case that another Federal agency is performing 

the survey on the OCS. Before authorizing any proposed prospecting, BOEM undertakes the necessary 

environmental review, including preparation of a NEPA document and consultations for protected 

species. Through the NEPA process, BOEM may identify mitigation measures to avoid/minimize 

environmental impacts during G&G surveys. Mitigation measures may be implemented as a condition 

for survey authorization.

Additionally, the incremental contribution of the G&G surveys conducted under the oil and gas 

program (included under Alternative A) to cumulative effects would also be eliminated under 

Alternative C, while effects from other activities in the AOI would remain. Limited impacts would occur 

because of case-by-case authorization of postlease G&G activities for renewable energy development and 

marine minerals use. 

Two general types of G&G site characterization surveys are expected to be conducted in support of 

renewable energy development: HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys (Chapter 3.3.2). The HRG 

surveys are conducted to obtain information about subseafloor conditions, shallow hazards, 

archaeological resources, and sensitive benthic habitats. Equipment typically used in HRG surveys for 

renewable energy includes single beam and/or multibeam depth sounders, magnetometers, side-scan 

sonars, and shallow or medium penetration subbottom profilers (electromechanical sources). BOEM does 
4-272 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

not anticipate that airguns would be used for renewable energy site assessment activities. Geotechnical 

surveys, which involve seafloor-disturbing activities such as CPTs, geologic coring, and grab sampling, 

are conducted to obtain information about surface and subsurface geological and geotechnical properties. 

Another activity conducted as part of site characterization is the deployment of bottom-founded 

monitoring buoys in a lease area. These meteorological buoys would be anchored at fixed locations and 

regularly collect observations from many different atmospheric and oceanographic sensors. The buoys 

can vary in height, hull type, and anchoring method (Chapter 3.3.2.3). 

The following discussion outlines the effects on the impact analysis of activities associated with 

renewable energy development and marine minerals use that would take place under Alternative C. 

4.4.1. Benthic Communities

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals use 

would occur. Applicable routine IPFs for benthic communities from renewable energy development and 

marine minerals activities are active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise from subbottom 

profilers, side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), trash and debris, and seafloor disturbance. 

Drilling discharges are only associated with COST and shallow test well drilling operations exclusive to 

the oil and gas program and would not occur under Alternative C.

4.4.1.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would lessen the extent, severity, and 

timing of active acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, and seafloor disturbance impacts and remove 

impacts from drilling discharges. 

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be necessary for renewable energy site assessment 

activities. Under Alternative C, other non-airgun G&G surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys) 

as part of renewable energy and marine minerals activities would still occur.

As presented in Chapter 4.2.1, the impacts to benthic communities from active acoustic sound 

sources are not well-documented, and there are no known systematic studies of the effects of sonar sound 

on invertebrates. Most marine invertebrates do not have sensory organs that can perceive sound pressure, 

but many have tactile hairs or sensory organs that are sensitive to disturbances such as those caused by 

hydroacoustic equipment. The active acoustic sound sources associated with Alternative C are not 

anticipated to be detected by benthic communities or invertebrates; therefore, these sources would not be 

expected to result in impacts to benthic communities, and there would be no impacts to benthic 

communities from active acoustic sound sources under Alternative C.

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters would be required to comply 

with Federal regulations, which include the requirements of MARPOL 73/78. In addition, all 

authorizations for shipboard surveys would be considered on a case-by-case basis. It remains to be 

determined if BSEE guidance for marine debris awareness would be developed under Alternative C. In 

spite of this unknown, required compliance with Federal regulations is expected to result in only minimal

amounts of trash and debris being accidentally lost overboard. Portions of the trash and debris accidently 

lost could sink to the seafloor and potentially entangle or smother sessile organisms. However, because 

of the small anticipated amount of accidental loss of trash and debris and the very small potential for this 

debris to sink to the seafloor onto sensitive benthic communities, the impacts on benthic communities 

from trash and debris as generated by survey vessels and sampling activities would be reduced under 

Alternative C; impacts would remain negligible. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Geotechnical surveys as part of renewable energy projects and sampling activities for marine minerals

involve seafloor-disturbing activities such as CPTs, geologic coring, and grab sampling. Additionally, the 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-273

placement and removal of equipment on the seafloor (e.g., monitoring buoys) may also cause seafloor 

disturbance and have impacts on both soft and hard/live bottom communities.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, the impacts from seafloor-disturbing activities would range from 

negligible to minor. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include bottom sampling

are associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The elimination of oil and 

gas exploration activities would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom samples taken 

(50-300 samples) (Table 3-4) but would also eliminate the potential for COST well and shallow test well 

installation, the latter of which was the only activity that would produce minor impacts to benthic 

communities under Alternative A. All other seafloor-disturbing activities could still occur under 

Alternative C. 

BOEM would implement requirements, including setbacks from sensitive benthic resources, to help 

ensure protection of sensitive benthic resources, including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral

communities, and chemosynthetic communities, prior to permitted activities. Given that BOEM would

require prior approval of any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of 

bottom-founded equipment or structures (including requiring site-specific information), sensitive benthic 

resources would be avoided. Therefore, potential impacts to sensitive benthic communities from seafloor 

sampling under Alternative C would still be negligible. 

Bottom sampling activities would primarily take place in soft bottom areas as most bottom sampling

equipment cannot penetrate hard bottom substrate. Although several thousand cores may be collected 

under the renewable energy and marine minerals programs, sampling in soft bottom areas would produce 

only localized impacts to soft bottom benthos. Therefore, potential impacts to soft bottom benthic 

communities from seafloor sampling under Alternative C would not be detectable and would remain 

negligible. 

Elimination of COST wells and shallow test wells under Alternative C would eliminate the minor

impact identified under Alternative A for this source.

4.4.1.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on benthic communities would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.1.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at 

the sea surface would be unlikely to have any effect on benthic communities.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of G&G

activities in support of oil and gas exploration, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk 

of a small fuel spill. Overall, the risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on benthic 

communities would be the same as under Alternative A and would be negligible. 

4.4.1.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.1.1 and 4.4.1.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in either no impacts or negligible impacts to benthic communities, 

depending on the activity, as a result of active acoustic sound sources, seafloor disturbance, trash and 

debris, drilling discharges, and accidental events. These IPFs would also contribute to the cumulative 

activities scenario under Alternative C. The cumulative activities scenario for benthic communities, as 

outlined in Chapter 4.2.1.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas 

development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG 

terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space 

program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable 

infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; 

(2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis 

identified only negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A

(Chapter 4.2.1.4). Under Alternative C, there would be no G&G activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration; therefore, there would still be only a negligible incremental increase in impacts from all IPFs.
4-274 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.4.2. Marine Mammals

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. Applicable routine IPFs for marine mammals from renewable energy development and marine 

minerals activities are active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise from subbottom profilers, 

side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, and trash and 

debris. Alternative C would not include any aeromagnetic surveys; therefore, there would be no impacts 

from aircraft traffic or noise.

4.4.2.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.2.1, the IPFs from routine activities that may impact marine mammals

within the AOI include active acoustic sound sources (i.e., electromechanical sources including 

subbottom profilers, multibeam depth sounders, and side-scan sonars); vessel and equipment noise (from 

survey and support vessels); vessel traffic (i.e., physical disturbance to and risk of collisions with marine 

mammals); and trash and debris (i.e., potential for entanglement and ingestion) (Table 4-2). 

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Under Alternative C, no seismic surveys using airguns associated with oil and gas exploration would 

take place; therefore, the impacts presented in Chapter 4.2.2.2 for seismic airgun survey noise would not 

occur. Only the impacts associated with HRG surveys (e.g., electromechanical sources) for renewable 

energy and marine minerals sites would occur. The impacts presented in Chapter 4.2.2.2 for HRG 

surveys would be the same for Alternative C (i.e., minor) as those presented for Alternative A. 

Vessel and Equipment Noise

As described in Chapter 4.2.2.2, G&G activities in all three program areas would generate vessel 

traffic and associated noise. The dominant source of noise from vessels is from propeller operation, and 

the intensity of this noise is largely related to ship size and speed. Equipment noise would also be 

generated from G&G vessels. Under Alternative A, based on the proposed volume of vessel traffic within 

the AOI and the presumption that individuals or groups of marine mammals within the AOI may be

familiar with various and common vessel-related noises, the effects of project-related vessel and 

equipment noise on marine mammals within the AOI was expected to be negligible to minor. Under 

Alternative C, no seismic airgun surveys for oil and gas exploration would occur, which would 

significantly decrease vessel traffic and the associated noise. Even with this decrease in vessel traffic and 

associated noise, the impact to marine mammals would still be negligible to minor under Alternative C.

Vessel Traffic

As described in Chapter 4.2.2.2, G&G activities in all three program areas would generate vessel 

traffic that could make marine mammals vulnerable to physical disturbance from or collisions

(ship strike) with moving vessels. Most reports of collisions involve large whales, but collisions with 

smaller species also occur (van Waerebeek et al., 2007). Under Alternative A, the analysis indicated that 

a collision between a project-related survey vessel and any marine mammal within the AOI is unlikely; 

vessel traffic impacts would be negligible. Under Alternative C, vessel operators would still be required 

to comply with NOAA’s ship strike reduction requirements. In addition, under this alternative, no 

seismic airgun surveys for oil and gas exploration would occur, which would decrease vessel traffic. 

Even with the reduced vessel traffic under Alternative, C, the impacts to marine mammals from vessel 

traffic are anticipated to remain the same as those under Alternative A.

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, which include MARPOL 73/78. It remains to be determined if BSEE guidance for 

marine debris awareness would be developed under Alternative C. With required compliance of vessel 

operators with Federal regulations, including the requirements of MARPOL, the amount of trash and 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-275

debris dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated. 

Taking into account existing laws and regulations regarding trash and debris disposal, it is unlikely that 

significant amounts of trash and debris from G&G activities would be released into the marine 

environment under Alternative C. Debris entanglement and ingestion impacts on marine mammals would 

be unchanged under Alternative C (negligible). 

4.4.2.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on marine mammals would be very similar to 

those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.2.3). The analysis concluded that an accidental diesel fuel 

spill adjacent to or within the NARW critical habitat during the winter calving period may result in direct 

contact of the spilled fuel with both adult and new born whales. It is presumed but not substantiated that 

the animals would avoid areas with heavy fuel sheen, and the fuel would disperse and weather rapidly. 

Impacts from an accidental fuel spill are not likely to seriously injure individual whales and thus were 

expected to be minor. Fuel spills in other areas of the AOI are not expected to result in significant 

impacts to marine mammals. Impacts were expected to be to be negligible. 

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the 

risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on marine mammals would be the same as those under 

Alternative A and would be minor if the spill occurred adjacent to or in the NARW critical habitat during 

the winter calving period and negligible if the spill occurred in other areas of the AOI.

4.4.2.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible impacts to marine mammals as a result of active

acoustic sound sources (electromechanical sources), vessel traffic, and trash and debris. Negligible to 

minor impacts were expected for vessel equipment and noise and accidental events. No impacts were 

identified for active acoustic sound sources (i.e., airguns and aircraft traffic and noise). The cumulative 

activities scenario for marine mammals, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.2.4, includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs for these cumulative activities that may affect marine mammals 

include (1) increased anthropogenic noise in the ocean, including underwater noise from sonars, 

explosives, dredges, vessel traffic, and other active sound sources; (2) discharges of drilling fluid, 

produced water, and other effluents from drilling rigs; (3) the physical presence of offshore structures; 

(4) accidental releases of trash and debris; (5) vessel collisions; (6) depletion of prey species from fishing 

pressure; (7) interactive effects of climate change, including impacts on preferred habitats and food 

sources; and (8) a risk of a crude oil spill from a well blowout or accidental releases of fuel or other 

hazardous materials from accidents (smaller accidental events or low-probability large scale catastrophic 

events).

Among the IPFs identified above for the cumulative impacts scenario, several sources of potential 

impacts to marine mammals have been identified in association with Alternative C G&G activities, 

including (1) underwater noise, (2) vessel and equipment noise, (3) vessel traffic and collisions, (4) trash

and debris, and (5) accidental events.

The cumulative impact analysis identified only negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts 

from underwater noise under Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.2.4). Under Alternative C there would be no 

activities associated with oil and gas exploration, which precludes seismic airgun surveys, a significant 

source of underwater noise, and significantly reduces the Level A and B take estimates. Therefore, 

underwater noise would be reduced under Alternative C and result in a negligible incremental increase 

under the cumulative scenario.

Under Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.2.4), it was expected that impacts would result in a negligible 

incremental increase in vessel collisions with marine mammals under the cumulative scenario because of
4-276 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

the low number of survey vessels in operation at a given time (relative to overall vessel traffic) and the 

low probability for a collision between a G&G vessel and a marine mammal (because of the relative slow 

operating speeds of survey vessels, existing vessel strike avoidance regulations, and the requirements for 

mitigation monitoring prior to and during all seismic survey activities). Under Alternative C, there would 

be no seismic airgun surveys performed for oil and gas exploration, which would reduce the overall 

number of survey vessels; however, a negligible incremental increase in vessel collisions with marine 

mammals is still anticipated to result under the cumulative scenario.

Vessel operators are required to comply with Federal regulations, including the requirements of 

MARPOL 73/78 and Annex V. Therefore, the amount of trash and debris intentionally dumped offshore 

would be very limited, and only accidental loss of trash and debris is expected. Impacts from cumulative 

activities within the AOI under Alternative C are expected to be negligible. The G&G activities under 

Alternative C would produce a negligible incremental impact to trash and debris impacts under the 

cumulative scenario.

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including 

high levels of vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the 

U.S. eastern seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing activity would also 

contribute to overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and 

subsequent loss of fuel. The likelihood of a diesel fuel spill during G&G activities is expected to be 

remote, and the associated impacts to marine mammals are expected to be negligible or minor, 

influenced by a series of factors, including whether spilled diesel fuel directly contacts individual animals, 

the quantity of fuel encountered, the degree of weathering to which the fuel has been exposed, and 

duration of contact. It is reasonable to assume that the potential for fuel spills from vessels involved in 

the cumulative activities scenario would be considerably higher than that expected from vessels 

associated with activities under Alternative C because of the relative magnitude of overall vessel activity 

in the AOI when compared to G&G activities. Therefore, the incremental increase in potential for 

accidental fuel spills arising from vessel collision during G&G activities would be considered to be 

extremely small. Based on the low probability of a G&G activity-related fuel spill during the period of 

interest, the incremental increase in diesel spill-related impacts to marine mammals under the cumulative 

scenario is expected to be negligible. 

4.4.3. Sea Turtles

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals use 

would occur. Applicable routine IPFs for sea turtles from renewable energy development and marine 

minerals activities are active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise from subbottom profilers, 

side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, and trash and 

debris. Alternative C would not include any aeromagnetic surveys; therefore, there would be no impacts 

from aircraft traffic or noise.

4.4.3.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would substantially lessen the extent, 

severity, and timing of active acoustic sound sources and slightly lessen the extent, severity, and timing of 

vessel and equipment noise, and vessel traffic. 

Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment Noise

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be necessary for renewable energy site assessment 

activities. Under Alternative C, other non-airgun G&G surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys) 

as part of renewable energy and marine minerals activities would still occur.

Detailed acoustic characteristics of electromechanical sources, including side-scan sonars, subbottom 

profilers, and depth sounders, are discussed in Appendix D. The HRG surveys of renewable energy and 

marine minerals sites would use predominantly electromechanical sources. Acoustic signals from 

electromechanical sources other than the boomer or sparker are not likely to be detectable by sea turtles. 

Boomer and sparker subbottom profilers emit frequencies that are within the presumed hearing range of 

sea turtles; however source levels are sufficiently low as to ensonify only a limited (5-m [16-ft]) radius 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-277

around the source. Any impacts from electromechanical sources being used by seismic surveys would be 

eliminated, leaving only electromagnetic sources employed in HRG and geotechnical surveys. Impacts 

from HRG and geotechnical surveys using boomer or sparker subbottom profilers on sea turtles are 

expected to be reduced to negligible under Alternative C. 

Activities occurring under Alternative C would generate vessel and equipment noise that could 

disturb sea turtles or contribute to auditory masking. As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.2, survey and 

support vessels are expected to produce strong low-frequency sounds up to approximately 50 Hz 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Broadband source levels for most small ships, including survey vessels that 

could be used for renewable energy and marine minerals surveys, are in the range of 150-170 dB re 1 μPa 

(Richardson et al., 1995).

Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for renewable energy would be smaller and operate 

mainly at specific sites (consisting of one or more OCS blocks) in water depths less than 40 m (131 ft) 

and along potential cable routes to shore. Similarly, vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling for 

marine minerals would be operating mainly at specific borrow sites in water depths less than 30 m (98 ft). 

Survey vessels for renewable energy and marine minerals projects are expected to make daily round trips 

to their shore base.

The most likely effects of vessel and equipment noise on sea turtles would include behavioral changes 

and possibly auditory masking. The source levels are too low to be expected to cause death, injury, or 

threshold shifts. Because of the uncertain role of hearing in sea turtle ecology, it is unclear whether 

masking would realistically have any effect on sea turtles. Behavioral responses to vessels have been 

observed but are difficult to attribute exclusively to noise rather than to visual or other cues. It is 

conservative to assume that noise associated with survey vessels may elicit behavioral changes, including 

evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in swimming direction and/or speed, in individual sea 

turtles near these vessels. This evasive behavior is not expected to adversely affect these individuals or 

the population, and so the impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Vessel Traffic

Survey vessels could strike and injure or kill sea turtles. Propeller and collision injuries to turtles 

arising from their interactions with boats and ships are common (Chapter 4.2.3). 

Under Alternative C, renewable energy and marine minerals surveys would continue to be reviewed 

and approved on a case-by-case basis. It remains to be determined if BOEM would provide vessel 

operators with appropriate guidance for vessel strike avoidance. All vessels over 65 ft (20 m) would be 

required to comply with NOAA’s ship strike reduction requirements, the benefits of which would extend 

to sea turtles (i.e., reduced vessel speeds in designated areas), particularly for the numerous day trips 

expected. With these mitigation measures in place, survey vessels are unlikely to strike sea turtles. 

Seismic vessels, which account for most of the project-related vessel traffic associated with Alternative A

activities, would be eliminated with the elimination of oil and gas activities under Alternative C. With the 

removal of seismic survey vessels and the requirement for visual observers, vessel traffic impacts are 

expected to be negligible. 

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, which implement MARPOL 73/78. Therefore, the amount of trash and debris

dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated, some of 

which could sink to the seafloor. Therefore, impacts on sea turtles from trash and debris as generated by 

survey vessels and sampling activities would be unchanged under Alternative C (negligible). 

4.4.3.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Sea turtles could be affected by an accidental diesel fuel spill during G&G activities. Under 

Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on sea turtles would be very similar to those analyzed for 

Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.3.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at the sea surface would be 

unlikely to have any effect on sea turtles.
4-278 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Potential 

impacts to sea turtles within the AOI are expected to range from negligible (if the fuel does not contact 

individual turtles) to minor (if individual turtles encounter the dispersed windrows of the surface slick). 

It is unlikely that a small fuel spill in the ocean would reach turtle nests, which are usually positioned 

above the high tide line. A small diesel fuel spill is not expected to result in the death or life-threatening 

injury of individual turtles or hatchlings, or the long-term displacement of adult turtles from preferred

feeding, breeding, or nesting habitats or migratory routes.

4.4.3.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.3.1 and 4.4.3.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in no impacts or negligible to minor impacts to sea turtles, 

depending on the activity, as a result of active acoustic sound sources (including vessel and equipment 

noise), vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental events. These IPFs would 

also contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative C. The cumulative activities 

scenario for sea turtles, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.3.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the 

AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use;

(4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range 

complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material 

disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were 

identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The 

cumulative impact analysis identified only negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts from all 

IPFs under Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.3.4). Under Alternative C there would be no activities associated 

with oil and gas exploration; therefore, there would still be only a negligible to minor incremental 

increase in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative C. Underwater noise and vessel traffic would be 

reduced under Alternative C, which would result in a negligible incremental increase in impacts under the 

cumulative scenario. Vessel operators would comply with Federal regulations, which include the 

requirements of MARPOL 73/78, including Annex V. With compliance, the amount of trash and debris 

intentionally dumped offshore would be very limited, and only accidental loss of trash and debris is 

expected; impacts from cumulative activities within the AOI are expected to be negligible. A significant 

amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative scenario, including high levels of 

vessel activity associated with shipping and marine transportation around ports along the U.S. eastern 

seaboard. Military operations and commercial and recreational fishing activity would also contribute to 

overall vessel activity. All vessel movements are associated with a risk of collision and subsequent loss 

of fuel. The risk of accidental fuel spill arising from a vessel collision under the cumulative scenario is 

expected to range from negligible to minor. The likelihood of a diesel fuel spill during the reduced G&G

activities under Alternative C is considered to be remote, and the associated impacts to sea turtles are still 

expected to range from negligible to minor. It is also reasonable that the potential for fuel spills from 

vessels involved in the cumulative activities scenario would be considerably higher than that expected 

under Alternative C because of the magnitude of vessel activity in the AOI and the high number of vessel 

transits. Therefore, the incremental increase in potential for accidental fuel spills arising from vessel 

collision during Alternative C G&G activities would be considered extremely small. The impacts 

associated with Alternative C and the low probability of a G&G activity-related fuel spill would result in 

a negligible incremental increase in sea turtle impacts under the cumulative activities scenario.

4.4.4. Marine and Coastal Birds

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals use 

would occur. Applicable routine IPFs for marine and coastal birds from renewable energy development 

and marine minerals activities include active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise from 

subbottom profilers, side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), vessel and equipment noise, vessel 

traffic, and trash and debris. Alternative C would not include any aeromagnetic surveys; therefore, there 

would be no impacts from aircraft traffic or noise.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-279

4.4.4.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would substantially lessen the extent, 

severity, and timing of active acoustic sound sources and slightly lessen the extent, severity, and timing of 

vessel traffic and the associated vessel and equipment noise. 

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be necessary for renewable energy site assessment 

activities. Under Alternative C, other non-airgun G&G surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys) 

as part of renewable energy and marine minerals activities would still occur. Electromechanical sources 

would be used during HRG surveys for renewable energy development and sand source evaluation, where 

a high-resolution boomer, sparker, or chirp subbottom profiler is typically used to delineate near-surface 

geologic strata and features and typically includes single beam and multibeam depth sounders and 

side-scan sonar.

As presented in Chapter 4.2.4.2, the impacts to marine and coastal birds from Alternative A from 

active acoustic sound sources were determined to be negligible or minor depending on the location of the 

survey and the equipment being used. Under Alternative C, the use of airguns would be eliminated and 

only the electromechanical sound sources (e.g., subbottom profilers) would remain. Only a portion of the 

underwater noise would fall within the airborne hearing range of birds, whereas noise generated by other 

types of survey equipment (e.g., side-scan sonar, depth sounders) is outside of their airborne hearing 

range and should be inaudible to birds. Therefore, if birds can hear within the same range for underwater 

noise as their airborne hearing range, the survey activities included in Alternative C that have the 

potential to impact diving seabirds and waterfowl are HRG surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals surveys.

As explained in Chapter 4.2.4, some seabirds and waterfowl either rest on the water surface or 

shallow-dive for only short durations. Because of this behavior, the members of these families of marine 

and coastal birds would not come in contact with active acoustic sounds generated from side-scan and 

subbottom profilers, since these seismic pulses are highly directive and pointed downward; therefore, it 

would result in a negligible impact. 

Diving seabirds and waterfowl could be susceptible to active acoustic sounds generated from 

side-scan sonar and subbottom profilers. However, these seismic pulses are highly directive, with beam 

widths as narrow as few degrees or narrower; the ramifications of this directionality include a lower risk 

of high level exposure to diving birds that may forage close to (but lateral to) a seismic vessel. Based on 

the directionality of the sound generated from side-scan sonars and subbottom profilers and the limited 

studies available, it is expected that there would be little disruption of behavioral patterns or other 

non-injurious effects to any diving seabirds or waterfowl, resulting in a negligible impact. 

Vessel and Equipment Noise and Vessel Traffic

Similar to Alternative A, the primary potential impacts to marine and coastal birds from vessel traffic

and noise are from underwater vessel and equipment noise, attraction to vessels and subsequent collision

or entanglement, disturbance to nesting or roosting, and disturbance to feeding or modified prey 

abundance. Since all G&G survey activities included in Alternative C are performed from vessels in all 

programs, all survey activities have the potential to impact marine and coastal birds from vessel traffic 

and noise. However, the removal of G&G activities associated with oil and gas exploration (except for 

remote sensing) would reduce the amount of vessel traffic and associated vessel and equipment noise 

when compared to Alternative A (Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-6). While the remaining surveys associated with 

renewable energy and marine minerals activities would take place closer to shore, where the predominant 

impact to marine and coastal birds would occur, overall impacts from vessel traffic and vessel and 

equipment noise to marine and coastal birds under Alternative C are expected to be lower and would be 

negligible. 
4-280 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Underwater Noise

The sound generated from individual vessels can contribute to overall ambient noise levels in the 

marine environment on variable spatial scales. As stated above in Chapter 4.2.4, birds have a relatively 

restricted hearing range, and there are few data available regarding bird hearing range for underwater 

noise. The survey vessels under Alternative C would contribute to the overall noise environment by 

transmitting noise through both air and water. Because of the dissipation of underwater noise from 

survey vessels prior to reaching the shore/beach habitat, it is expected that underwater noise would 

produce negligible impacts to shorebird species, including piping plover and red knot, as well as to 

marine and coastal birds using the nearshore BCRs within the AOI.

Some seabirds and waterfowl either rest on the water surface, skim the water surface, or shallow dive 

for only short durations. Because of such behaviors, these birds would not come in contact with 

underwater vessel noise generated from survey vessels or equipment, or the contact would be for such a 

short time that it would result in little disruption of behavioral patterns or other non-injurious effects. 

Therefore, impacts to these seabirds and waterfowl (including the Bermuda petrel and roseate tern) from 

vessel and equipment noise would be a negligible. 

Diving seabirds and waterfowl could be susceptible to underwater noise generated from survey 

vessels and equipment. Renewable energy and marine minerals surveys typically involve a single vessel. 

This level of vessel activity per survey event would not significantly increase existing vessel and 

equipment noise, and noise levels would dissipate quickly with distance from the vessel and impact only a 

very small area of the AOI. Therefore, impacts to seabirds and waterfowl from the underwater noise from 

survey vessels and equipment are expected to be negligible. 

There are three offshore IBAs off the coast of North Carolina. Because of the noise produced from 

survey vessels, there is the potential for some diving seabirds and waterfowl that use these areas to come 

into contact with survey vessel and equipment noise. However, because of noise dissipation, only a very 

small area of IBAs would experience vessel and equipment noise. Therefore, impacts to those species of 

seabirds and waterfowl present within offshore IBAs from the underwater noise from survey vessels and 

equipment are expected to be negligible. 

Vessel Attraction

Renewable energy and marine minerals surveys typically involve a single vessel, which would not 

result in a significant increase in vessel traffic when compared to existing vessel traffic in nearshore or 

offshore waters. In addition, vessels performing surveys are relatively slow-moving (approximately 

4-6 kn [7.4-11.1 km/hr]), allowing for marine and coastal birds to easily move out of their way.

The potential for bird strikes on a vessel is not expected to be significant to individual birds or their 

populations. However, a number of seabird species are generally attracted to offshore rigs and vessels. 

Survey equipment is typically towed behind vessels at varying water depths below the surface, and 

vessels are required to have down-shielded lighting to minimize the potential attraction of birds. There 

exists a very low potential for either vessel collision or entanglement since the vessels are moving 

relatively slowly (4-6 kn [7.4-11.1 km/hr]) and the gear is towed below the surface. Given the low 

potential for collision or gear entanglement, the impacts to individual birds or their populations are not 

expected to be significant, resulting in a negligible impact to these types of seabirds from vessel 

attraction. Shorebirds are not known to be attracted to vessels. Therefore, there would not be impacts to 

shorebirds from vessel attraction.

Disturbance to Nesting or Roosting 

There is the potential for impact to marine and coastal birds from the potential disturbance of 

breeding colonies by airborne noise from vessels (Chapter 4.2.4). Survey vessels for renewable energy

and marine minerals projects are expected to make daily round trips to their shore base.

Vessels could cause a disturbance to breeding birds, with the potential to adversely affect egg and 

nestling mortality, if a vessel approached too close to a breeding colony. The G&G surveys would not 

occur close enough to land to affect marine and coastal bird breeding colonies during survey activities. 

However, survey vessels for renewable energy and marine minerals projects would typically transit from 

a shore base to offshore and return daily. The expectation is that this daily vessel transit would occur at 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-281

one of the shore bases identified or at other established ports, which have established transiting routes for 

ingress and egress in the coastal areas and existing vessel traffic. Because of this existing vessel traffic, it 

is not anticipated that marine and coastal birds would roost in adjacent areas, or if they did already roost 

nearby, the addition of G&G-related survey vessels would not significantly increase the existing vessel 

traffic. In addition, airborne noise generated from the survey vessels would typically dissipate prior to 

reaching the coastline and the nesting habitats of coastal birds. Birds that have decided to roost or nest 

within hearing range of vessel routes would likely have adapted to the noise and not be stressed. Impacts 

of airborne vessel and equipment noise to nesting or roosting marine and coastal birds under Alternative 

C would be negligible. 

Disturbance to Feeding or Modified Prey Abundance 

Survey vessel and equipment noise could cause pelagic bird species to be disturbed and relocate to 

alternative areas, which could result in a localized, temporary displacement and disruption of feeding. 

These alternative areas may not provide food sources (prey) or habitat requirements similar to that of the 

original (preferred) habitat and could result in additional energetic requirements expended by the birds 

and diminished foraging opportunity. However, the survey types included in Alternative C are typically 

of short duration, and it is expected that if these species temporarily moved out of the area it would be 

limited to a very small portion of a bird‘s foraging range, and it would be unlikely that this temporary 

relocation because of noise from survey vessels would affect foraging success. Impacts to pelagic birds 

from disturbance associated with vessel and equipment noise would be negligible. 

Chapter 4.2.4.1.4 illustrated the importance of migration routes, habitat requirements for 

nesting/feeding, and the IBAs for marine and coastal birds in the AOI. Because of the noise produced 

from G&G survey vessels, there is the potential for modified prey abundance and distribution that 

migrating birds rely on for the accumulation of fat reserves to fuel their migration, which could result in 

additional energetic requirements for the migrating birds. However, under Alternative C it is unlikely that 

bird prey species would be affected by G&G survey vessels to a level that would affect foraging success, 

especially with the significantly reduced vessel traffic and survey activities. As noted previously, surveys 

would not take place within coastal nearshore areas or within bays. If prey species exhibit avoidance of 

the area in which a survey is performed, it is expected to be limited to a very small portion of a bird‘s 

foraging range and for a limited duration. Additionally, shorebirds that feed along the shoreline would 

not be impacted by vessel and equipment noise.

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, which include MARPOL 73/78. In addition, it remains to be determined if 

case-by-case review and approval of marine minerals and renewable energy surveys would include 

guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, with required compliance, the amount of trash and 

debris dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated, which 

could be ingested by marine or coastal birds. Therefore, impacts on marine and coastal birds from trash 

and debris as generated by survey vessels and sampling activities under Alternative C would be 

unchanged (negligible). 

4.4.4.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills 

Marine and coastal birds could be affected by an accidental diesel fuel spill during G&G activities. 

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on marine and coastal birds would be very similar 

to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.4.3); however, there would be a reduced potential for an 

accidental fuel spill because of the decreased number of survey vessels.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. An 

accidental fuel spill within nearshore waters would not be expected to result in significant impacts to 

these types of coastal and marine birds. Impacts to birds from accidents are unlikely; however, in the 

event that an accident occurs, there could possibly be impacts on their food supply. Impacts to 

shorebirds, waterfowl, and seabird species would range from negligible (if the fuel does not contact 
4-282 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

individual birds) to minor (if individual birds encounter the dispersed windrows of the surface slick). 

Since the populations of piping plover, roseate tern, and red knot are already in peril, any impact to these 

populations from an accidental fuel spill would result in a moderate impact to these species. Impacts to 

oceanic and pelagic birds from a spill incident involving survey vessels within offshore waters would 

range from negligible (if the fuel does not contact individual birds) to minor (if individual birds 

encounter the dispersed windrows of the surface slick). However, since populations of Bermuda petrel

are already imperiled, if an accidental release occurred that affected the Bermuda petrel, there is the 

potential for a moderate impact.

Within IBAs, there is expected to be a greater presence of marine and coastal birds. If a diesel spill 

were to occur within or adjacent to the IBAs, there would be a greater potential for impact to oceanic and 

pelagic birds present in the IBA. Impacts from an accidental fuel spill within an IBA would be expected 

to range from negligible to minor. 

4.4.4.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.4.1 and 4.4.4.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible to moderate impacts to marine and coastal birds, 

depending on the activity, location, and bird species, as a result of active acoustic sound sources

(i.e., electromechanical sources), vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, and 

trash and debris. The cumulative activities scenario for marine and coastal birds, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.4.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; 

(2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; 

(6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; 

(8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. 

Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise 

in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The IPFs that would contribute to the cumulative activities 

scenario under Alternative C include underwater noise including active acoustic sound sources and vessel 

and equipment noise, presence of structures including vessel and helicopter traffic, trash and debris, and 

accidental fuel spills. 

As presented in Chapter 4.2.4.4, the cumulative impacts under Alternative A are expected to be 

negligible for underwater noise, presence of structures including vessel and helicopter traffic, and trash

and debris. Under Alternative C, there would be a reduced number of G&G surveys, which would not 

significantly modify the associated cumulative impacts. Therefore, impacts to marine and coastal birds

from these IPFs under the cumulative activities scenario would remain the same (i.e., negligible). 

Alternative C would only slightly reduce the overall vessel traffic; and therefore, would not change the 

incremental risk from accidental fuel spills, which would still result in a minor to moderate impact to 

marine and coastal birds, depending on the size, location, and season under the cumulative scenario.

4.4.5. Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. Applicable routine IPFs for fisheries resources and EFH from renewable energy development and 

marine minerals activities are active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise from subbottom 

profilers, side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), vessel and equipment noise, and seafloor 

disturbance. Drilling discharges are only associated with COST and shallow test well drilling operations, 

exclusive to the oil and gas program and would not occur under Alternative C.

4.4.5.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would slightly reduce the extent, 

severity, and timing of active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, and seafloor 

disturbance impacts, and remove drilling discharge impacts. Therefore, impacts would be incrementally 

decreased under Alternative C. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-283

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be used for renewable energy site assessment activities. 

Of the various types of active acoustic sound sources discussed in Chapter 3, due the nature of their 

sound output, airguns have the greatest potential to affect fishes physiologically. Under Alternative C, 

other non-airgun G&G surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys) would still occur as part of 

renewable energy and marine minerals activities; however, minor impacts associated with airguns would 

be eliminated.

As presented in Chapter 4.2.5.1.4 and Appendix J, findings showed that many fishes cannot detect 

sounds above approximately 3-4 kHz, and most are only able to detect sounds to 1 kHz or below; 

however, a few species of cartilaginous fishes can only detect sounds that are around 600 or 800 Hz. The 

highest frequency detected for some commercially important fish families is around 1,000 Hz, but some 

can detect higher frequencies that are around 4,000 Hz (some important bait fishes) and others can detect 

some very high frequencies that are greater than 120,000 Hz (shad and menhaden) (Appendix J). In 

general, commercial fish species would be most susceptible to the low-frequency sound sources such as 

some subbottom profilers (e.g., boomers, sparkers).

Under Alternative C, routine surveys would generate noise through electromechanical sources and 

vessels, since no seismic airgun surveys using airguns would be performed. During surveying activities, 

the sound source is constantly moving, and intense sounds would rarely be close enough to individuals to 

inflict physiological or anatomical damage. Various sonar units emit semi-continuous noise that would 

not inflict physical damage to individuals except at very close range.

As presented in Chapter 4.2.5.2, affected species would either vacate the survey area, experience 

TTS (hearing loss), experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or be completely unaffected. 

Overall background noise would increase during surveys of particular pre-plotted areas of seafloor such 

as renewable energy buoy sites and sand borrow areas. Ambient noise levels would return once the 

survey ends and the noise source is terminated. The mobile nature of the surveys as well as the temporary 

surveying of small areas of the seafloor relative to the overall area and the propensity of fishes to 

temporarily move away from noise that is affecting them suggest that the impacts from Alternative A

would be minor. Therefore, with the reduction in active acoustic seismic noise under Alternative C, the 

impacts would be reduced to negligible. 

Vessel and Equipment Noise

G&G HRG survey and geotechnical survey activity occurring under Alternative C would be 

conducted from vessels. Ships, barges, and platforms powered primarily by diesel engines produce sound 

that is below levels that can cause TTS or mortality in fishes. Presently there are few areas within the 

AOI that do not experience vessel noise of some kind; regional fishes are likely to have habituated to this 

noise (Appendix J). While vessel and equipment noise would increase in the AOI as a result of the 

Alternative C scenario, impacts of vessel and equipment noise are expected to be lower than under 

Alternative A, and would be negligible. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are bottom sampling (cores and 

grabs); placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; and placement of 

anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10). Placement of equipment on the seafloor can damage areas 

where direct contact with the seafloor occurs. Many well-known hard bottom areas that have been 

designated as exclusionary zones or HAPCs would be avoided during G&G survey activities. Soft 

bottom areas where deployments are made would lose benthic organisms (because of burial and 

crushing), and bottom-feeding fishes would be temporarily displaced from feeding areas.

The proposed action scenario indicates that individual grab samples, core samples, and 

bottom-founded meteorological buoys would affect a relatively small portion of the seafloor within the 

AOI (Chapter 3.5.1.8). As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2, the impacts from seafloor-disturbing activities 

are expected to be negligible under Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A 

that include bottom sampling are associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program

areas. The removal of the oil and gas exploration activities would only slightly reduce the overall number 
4-284 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

of bottom samples taken (50-300 samples) (Table 3-4), and all other seafloor-disturbing activities could 

still occur under Alternative C. Given the estimates of minimal seafloor disturbance by projected G&G

activities, impacts to fisheries resources and EFH are expected to be negligible. 

Drilling Discharges

Discharges from COST and shallow test wells would not occur under Alternative C. Therefore, the 

impacts to fisheries resources and EFH from drilling discharges under Alternative A (i.e., negligible) 

would be eliminated. No impacts to fisheries resources and EFH from drilling discharges are expected.

4.4.5.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on fisheries resources and EFH would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.5.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at 

the sea surface would be likely to produce a minor impact to fisheries resources and EFH.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. For the 

duration of a spill, species and life stages residing in the upper water column are most at risk for contact 

with the spilled fuel. Coastal pelagic and epipelagic adults that forage at the ocean surface would be most 

likely to encounter a surface spill but would likely swim away from a small diesel spill. Planktonic early 

life stages would be less able to avoid a spill and therefore are most vulnerable. The EFH most at risk 

from a small diesel spill would be pelagic Sargassum, which supports numerous fishes and invertebrates 

including the young of several federally managed species. Because the effects on early life stages and 

Sargassum are expected to last for a day or less and have limited spatial extent, the impacts of a small 

accidental diesel fuel spill from G&G activity would be minor. 

4.4.5.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.5.1 and 4.4.5.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible impacts to fisheries resources and EFH as a result of 

active acoustic sound sources (i.e., electromechanical sources), vessel and equipment noise, seafloor 

disturbance, and accidental events. Impacts from drilling discharges would be eliminated. The IPFs 

contributing to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative C include active acoustic sound 

sources, vessel and equipment noise, the presence of structures, seafloor disturbance, and accidental 

events. The cumulative activities scenario for fisheries and EFH, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.5.4, includes 

10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy

development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and 

recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and 

marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified only small to minor incremental 

increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. Under Alternative C there would be no activities 

associated with oil and gas exploration; therefore, there would still be only a small to minor incremental 

increase in impacts from all IPFs, depending on the IPF. Underwater noise and vessel traffic would be 

reduced under Alternative C, resulting in a negligible incremental increase under the cumulative scenario. 

While permanent and temporarily moored structures including barges, buoys, wind turbines, and other 

structures would attract fishes, the small size of the structures and the relatively short duration of 

deployments would result in only a small incremental increase in cumulative impacts on fisheries 

resources and EFH. The small footprint associated with activities resulting in seafloor disturbance would 

be minimal, and the impacted seafloor area would account for only a small fraction of the total seafloor 

area of the AOI; therefore, the incremental increase in cumulative impacts is expected to be negligible. 

Vessel traffic would not be significantly reduced under Alternative C; therefore, the incremental increase 

in cumulative impacts from an accidental fuel spill would remain small.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-285

4.4.6. Threatened and Endangered Fish Species

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. Applicable routine IPFs for threatened and endangered species from renewable energy 

development and marine minerals activities are active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise

from subbottom profilers, side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), vessel and equipment noise, 

trash and debris, and seafloor disturbance. Drilling discharges are only associated with COST and 

shallow test well drilling operations, exclusive to the oil and gas program and would not occur under 

Alternative C. Three endangered fish species (smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic 

sturgeon) occur in the AOI and may be affected by activities under Alternative C.

4.4.6.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would slightly reduce the extent, 

severity, and timing of impacts resulting from active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, 

trash and debris, seafloor disturbance impacts, and remove drilling discharge impacts. Therefore, impacts 

would be incrementally decreased under Alternative C.

Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Vessel and Equipment Noise

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be used for renewable energy site assessment activities. 

Of the various types of seismic equipment discussed in Chapter 3, due to the nature of their sound 

output, airguns have the greatest potential to affect fishes physiologically; under Alternative C, this 

impact would be removed. However, under Alternative C, other non-airgun G&G surveys (HRG surveys 

and geotechnical surveys) would still occur as part of renewable energy and marine minerals activities. 

As was the case with Alternative A, because of the low numbers of smalltooth sawfish in the AOI, effects 

of active acoustic sound sources are expected to be negligible under Alternative C. Shortnose sturgeon 

are also rare within the AOI, preferring estuaries and rivers inshore of the coastline; therefore, the effect 

of active acoustic sound sources on this species is likely to be negligible under Alternative C. The 

Atlantic sturgeon is more prevalent in the shelf AOI and could be affected by active acoustic noise. 

Atlantic sturgeon possess poor underwater hearing sensitivity and are most susceptible to low-frequency

noise sources. The active acoustic sound sources associated with Alternative C produce mid- and 

high-frequencies that are not anticipated to be detected by Atlantic sturgeon; therefore, these sources 

would be expected to result in no impact to Atlantic sturgeon. Because of the limited spatial and 

temporal components of proposed Alternative C G&G surveys relative to alewife distribution in the AOI, 

impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Although Alternative C would result in reduced vessel traffic and therefore less overall vessel and 

equipment noise in the AOI, the other non-oil and gas G&G activities would still represent a source of 

noise that could affect coastal populations of Atlantic sturgeon. Impacts of vessel and equipment noise on 

Atlantic sturgeon are expected to be negligible. Because of limited geographic coverage, relative 

abundance, or distribution, the impacts of vessel and equipment noise on smalltooth sawfish, and 

shortnose sturgeon, individuals in the AOI would be negligible. 

Vessel Traffic

Similar to Alternative A, vessel traffic has the potential to affect endangered and threatened fish 

species through interaction (i.e., vessel strikes) with motor vessels, particularly those operating in shallow 

water (relative vessel draft). However, vessel traffic would be reduced under Alternative C and vessel 

strike mortality from increased vessel traffic associated with the Alternative C would be reduced; but still 

expected to be negligible. 

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, which implement MARPOL 73/78. In addition, it remains to be determined if 

case-by-case review and approval of marine minerals and renewable energy surveys would include 

guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, with required compliance, the amount of trash and 
4-286 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

debris dumped offshore would be minimal, as only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated. 

Therefore, impacts on smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon from trash and debris 

as generated by seismic survey vessels and sampling activities under Alternative C would be unchanged 

(negligible). 

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are bottom sampling (cores and 

grabs); placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; and placement of 

anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10). 

The Alternative A scenario indicates that individual grab samples, core samples, and bottom-founded 

meteorological buoys would affect a relatively small portion of the seafloor within the AOI 

(Chapter 3.5.1.8). As discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.2, the impacts from seafloor-disturbing activities were 

determined to be negligible under Alternative A. Most of the seafloor-disturbing activities under 

Alternative A are associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The removal 

of the oil and gas exploration activities would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom samples 

taken (50-300 samples) (Table 3-4), and all other seafloor-disturbing activities could still occur under 

Alternative C. Seafloor disturbance would not greatly affect the smalltooth sawfish or shortnose 

sturgeon. Of concern would be destruction of habitat; in the case of Atlantic sturgeon, it would be soft 

bottom areas where feeding occurs. These impacts would be negligible for smalltooth sawfish and 

shortnose sturgeon because of their scarcity in the AOI. Effects on Atlantic sturgeon would be negligible

because of the small footprint of sampling and bottom tending operations.

4.4.6.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on threatened and endangered species would 

be very similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.6.3). The analysis concluded that a 

small spill at the sea surface would be unlikely to have any effect.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. However, 

smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon are demersal species with no pelagic life 

stage found in the AOI. Therefore, the expected impact of an accidental diesel fuel spill is expected to be 

negligible for all three of these species.

4.4.6.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.6.1 and 4.4.6.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible impacts to threatened and endangered species as a 

result of active acoustic sound sources (i.e., electromechanical sources), vessel and equipment noise, 

vessel traffic, seafloor disturbance, trash and debris, and accidental events. Impacts from drilling 

discharges would be eliminated. The same IPFs would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario 

under Alternative C, with the exception of drilling discharges. The cumulative activities scenario for 

threatened and endangered species, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.6.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable 

activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine 

minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; 

(7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; 

(9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact

sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative 

vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified only negligible to minor incremental increases 

in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, there would be no activities 

associated with oil and gas exploration; therefore, there would be a sizeable decrease in G&G activities. 

This decrease would not change the cumulative impacts determined under Alternative A and would still 

result in negligible impacts to threatened and endangered species from active acoustic noise 

(i.e., electromechanical sources), vessel and equipment noise, seafloor disturbance, vessel traffic, trash 

and debris; and from accidental events.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-287

4.4.7. Commercial Fisheries

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would

occur. Applicable routine IPFs for commercial fisheries from renewable energy development and marine 

minerals activities are active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise from subbottom profilers, 

side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), vessel traffic and seafloor disturbance.

4.4.7.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would reduce the extent, severity, and 

timing of active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones, and seafloor 

disturbance, therefore, impacts would be incrementally decreased or eliminated under Alternative C. 

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be used for renewable energy site assessment activities. 

Under Alternative C, other non-airgun G&G surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys) would still 

occur as part of renewable energy and marine minerals activities.

Geological and geophysical activities for renewable energy and marine minerals activities would 

occur close to shore, and surveys would be of a short duration (Chapter 3). For example, studies related 

to renewable energy are currently limited to about 46 km (25 nmi) from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water 

depth and would require 3 days or less to complete, while marine minerals activities (i.e., sand source 

mining, existing borrow areas) are typically located in water depths between 10 and 30 m (33 and 98 ft), 

are restricted to a half dozen locations in the AOI, and would be only day-long survey efforts.

Given the spatial and temporal characteristics of active acoustic sound source use under Alternative C

(single beam and/or multibeam depth sounders, side-scan sonars, and shallow or medium penetration 

subbottom profilers [electromechanical sources]) and the results of limited sound exposure studies on 

fishes, it is likely that potential impacts to commercial fisheries resources would be negligible, with no 

population-level effects. Impacts, including behavioral changes and avoidance, are expected at a few 

locations, with likely impacts being intermittent, temporary, and short-term. There would be an increased 

potential for a localized and temporary decrease in catchability of one or more commercial fish species. 

Overall, impacts associated with active acoustic sound generated from G&G activities under 

Alternative C are expected to be minor. 

Vessel Traffic

Total vessel traffic associated with G&G activities under Alternative C would decrease compared to 

Alternative A. Renewable energy and marine minerals surveys would generally be limited to day-long 

surveys relatively close to port. Although oil and gas seismic surveys would be eliminated under 

Alternative C, renewable energy and marine minerals surveys represent the potential for interference with 

commercial fishing operations, especially dredges, otter trawls, longlines, and purse seines. These types 

of commercial fisheries could be adversely affected because vessel traffic throughout the fishing grounds 

may prevent commercial fishing operators from properly setting their gear. Under Alternative C, airguns

would not be utilized, thus eliminating the vessel exclusion zones associated with airgun arrays and towed 

streamers.

Under Alternative C, G&G activities and associated vessel traffic levels would be reduced, effectively 

reducing the potential for interactions with commercial fishery operations. Impacts are expected at a few 

locations and would be intermittent, temporary, and short-term. Impacts to commercial fisheries arising 

from vessel traffic are expected to be negligible. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are bottom sampling (cores and 

grabs); placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; and placement of 

anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10), which has the potential to damage to bottom-founded fishing 

gear such as bottom longlines, bottom and mid-water gillnets, and pots and traps.
4-288 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The proposed action scenario indicates that individual grab samples, core samples, and 

bottom-founded meteorological buoys would affect a relatively small portion of the seafloor within the 

AOI (Chapter 3.5.1.8). As discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2, the impacts from seafloor-disturbing activities 

were determined to be negligible. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include 

bottom sampling are associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The 

removal of the oil and gas exploration activities would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom 

samples taken (50-300 samples) (Table 3-4), and all other seafloor-disturbing activities could still occur 

under Alternative C. It is likely that intermittent, temporary, and short-term changes in benthic habitats 

would occur as a result of G&G benthic sampling and coring activity. Although these types of G&G 

activities would be conducted on a very limited basis, there is a chance of encountering a productive 

fishing area. Seafloor disturbance and its impacts to commercial fishing operations under Alternative C 

are expected to be limited and localized and therefore would be a negligible to minor impact, depending 

on location.

4.4.7.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on commercial fisheries resources would be 

very similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.7.3). The analysis concluded that impacts 

from a small spill at the sea surface would range from negligible to minor. 

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. A small 

diesel spill is expected to disperse and weather rapidly, with evaporation of volatile components. It is 

unlikely that a small release of diesel fuel would have any direct impact to commercial fisheries

throughout the AOI. Spill vessel response activity also has the potential to adversely affect commercial 

fishing operations. However, given the size of the potential spill, a large-scale spill response involving 

multiple vessels is not expected. Although a small fuel spill is not likely to pose a serious threat to fishery 

landings, there is the possibility that consumers would not buy fish or shellfish from the affected locality. 

Misperceptions like this could result in a temporary drop in revenue to local commercial fishers. 

Therefore, impacts to commercial fisheries resources from a small diesel fuel spill are expected to range 

from negligible to minor. 

4.4.7.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.7.1 and 4.4.7.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in no impact, negligible, or minor impacts to commercial 

fisheries resources, depending on the IPF, as a result of active acoustic sound sources 

(i.e., electromechanical sources), vessel traffic, seafloor disturbance, and accidental events. The same 

IPFs would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative C. The cumulative 

activities scenario for commercial fisheries, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.7.4, includes 10 reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; 

(3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational 

fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine 

transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis under Alternative A identified negligible 

incremental increases in impacts from vessel traffic, seafloor disturbance, and accidental events, and 

minor incremental increase in impacts from active acoustic noise. Under Alternative C there would be no 

activities associated with oil and gas exploration, which would eliminate the impacts from most active 

acoustic sound sources (i.e, airguns) and vessel exclusion zones. All other IPFs under the Alternative C 

cumulative scenario would remain the same.

4.4.8. Recreational Fisheries

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. Applicable routine IPFs for recreational fisheries from renewable energy development and marine 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-289

minerals activities are active acoustic sound sources (such as underwater noise from subbottom profilers, 

side-scan sonar, and multibeam depth sounders), vessel traffic, and seafloor disturbance.

4.4.8.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of G&G activities in support of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would 

reduce the extent, severity, and timing of active acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and vessel 

exclusion zones; therefore, impacts would be incrementally decreased or eliminated under Alternative C. 

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be used for renewable energy site assessment activities. 

Under Alternative C, other non-airgun G&G surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys) would still 

occur as part of renewable energy and marine minerals activities, while seismic surveys and their 

associated impacts would be eliminated.

Geological and geophysical activities for renewable energy and marine minerals activities would 

occur close to shore, and surveys would be of a short duration (Chapter 3). For example, studies related 

to renewable energy are currently limited to about 46 km (25 nmi) from shore or 40 m (131 ft) water 

depth and would require one vessel and 3 days or less to complete, while marine minerals activities 

(i.e., sand source mining, existing borrow areas) are typically located in water depths between 10 and 

30 m (33 and 98 ft), are restricted to a half dozen locations in the AOI, and would be only day-long 

survey efforts with one vessel.

Given the absence of serious injury or mortality to recreational fishes and the potential for behavioral 

changes from active acoustic sound exposure, it is likely that potential impacts would be intermittent, 

temporary, and short-term in terms of duration or frequency. Overall, exposure to active acoustic sound 

sources from G&G activities under Alternative C (i.e., electromechanical sources) is expected to produce 

negligible to minor impacts to recreational fisheries. 

Vessel Traffic

Total vessel traffic associated with G&G activities under Alternative C would decrease compared to 

Alternative A. Renewable energy and marine minerals surveys would generally be limited to day-long 

surveys relatively close to port. Although oil and gas seismic surveys would be eliminated under 

Alternative C, renewable energy and marine minerals surveys represent the potential for interference with 

recreational fishing operations, especially to those engaged in amateur and professional fishing 

tournaments. Recreational fisheries could be affected because G&G vessel traffic throughout the fishing 

grounds may prevent or limit access by recreational fishermen. Under Alternative C, airguns would not 

be utilized, thus eliminating a portion of vessel traffic as well as the vessel exclusion zones associated 

with airgun arrays and towed streamers. Vessel traffic has the potential to affect several recreational 

fishing activities within the AOI, but any effects would be intermittent, temporary, and very short-term. 

Vessel traffic disturbance and how it relates to recreational fishing activities are expected to be negligible. 

4.4.8.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational fisheries resources would be 

very similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.8.3). The analysis concluded that a small 

spill at the sea surface would produce negligible to minor impacts to recreational fisheries

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. A small 

diesel spill is expected to disperse and weather rapidly, with evaporation of volatile components. 

However, recreational fishing activity is expected to be precluded from a small area around the fuel 

source for a day or less during spill response operations. Given the relatively small size of the spill and 

the rapid loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and dispersion, a small diesel fuel spill at the 

surface would have little to no effect on recreational fisheries. News of a spill may prompt recreational 

fishers to avoid preferred local fishing areas and cause temporary shift in effort and therefore 
4-290 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

expenditures by recreational fishers in the affected locality. An accidental diesel fuel spill would be 

expected to result in negligible to minor impacts to recreational fisheries under Alternative C.

4.4.8.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.8.1 and 4.4.8.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible impacts to recreational fishery activities as a result 

of active acoustic sound sources (i.e., electromechanical sources), vessel traffic, and accidental events. 

The same IPFs would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative C. The 

cumulative activities scenario for recreational fishing activities, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.8.4, includes 

10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy

development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and 

recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and 

marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader 

cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and 

(3) cumulative vessel activity. 

The cumulative impact analysis identified negligible or small incremental increases in impacts from 

all IPFs under Alternative A. Under Alternative C there would be no activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration, which removes the use of airguns and towing of streamers and the associated impacts; 

therefore, potential impacts to recreational fishing would be slightly reduced. However, this slight 

reduction in impacts to recreational fishing from Alternative C would not result in a change in the 

cumulative scenario impact levels from those determined for Alternative A, and there would still be small 

incremental increases in impacts from underwater noise, since the oil and gas exploration activities 

typically occur further offshore than recreational fishing grounds. The incremental increases in 

cumulative impacts from vessel exclusion zones and accidental events would still be negligible. 

4.4.9. Recreational Resources

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. The only applicable routine IPF for recreational resources from renewable energy development 

and marine minerals activities is trash and debris. With elimination of oil and gas seismic surveys and 

their associated vessel exclusion zones, impacts from vessel exclusion to recreational resources would be 

eliminated.

4.4.9.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would reduce the extent, severity, and 

timing of trash and debris; therefore, impacts would be incrementally decreased under Alternative C. 

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, which implement MARPOL 73/78. In addition, it remains to be determined if 

case-by-case review and approval of marine minerals and renewable energy surveys would include 

guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, with required compliance, the amount of trash and 

debris dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental loss of trash and debris is anticipated, some 

of which could wash up on beaches and into harbors, embayments, and coastal salt marshes. Trash and 

debris on beaches would constitute aesthetic degradation of the recreational resource and adversely affect 

the current recreational use of the beach. Further, the presence of trash and debris could also result in a 

long-term loss of reputation as a pristine tourist destination. Trash and debris can also present a safety 

hazard, both on beaches and in boating and fishing areas, where it could foul boat engines and fishing 

gear. The most likely scenario is that trash and debris accidentally released from G&G activities could 

interfere with recreational use; however, the amount of vessel traffic associated with Alternative C that 

could accidentally lose trash and debris is very small when compared to overall vessel traffic and vessel 

traffic levels under Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to recreational resources under Alternative C from 

trash and debris would be expected to be reduced compared to Alternative A and would be negligible. 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-291

4.4.9.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational resources would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.9.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill at 

the sea surface would be unlikely to have any effect.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. A small 

diesel spill is expected to disperse and weather rapidly, with evaporation of volatile components. Given 

the relatively small size of the spill and the rapid loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation and 

dispersion, a small diesel fuel spill at the surface would have little to no effect on recreational resources. 

If the worst-case scenario spill were to occur, it could limit the access of recreational uses and limit the 

full use of the recreational resource for a short period of time. The impact of a diesel fuel spill on 

recreational resources is expected to be negligible to minor, depending on location of the spill.

4.4.9.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.9.1 and 4.4.9.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible to minor impacts to recreational resources as a result 

of trash and debris and accidental fuel spills. The same IPFs would contribute to the cumulative activities 

scenario under Alternative C. The cumulative activities scenario for recreational resources, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.9.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; 

(2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; 

(6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; 

(8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. 

Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise

in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified incremental 

increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. Under Alternative C there would be no activities 

associated with oil and gas exploration, resulting in elimination of impacts associated with vessel 

exclusion zones. There would be only a negligible incremental increase in impacts from all remaining 

IPFs under Alternative C. 

4.4.10. Archaeological Resources

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. The applicable routine IPF for archaeological resources from renewable energy development and 

marine minerals activities is seafloor disturbance. Drilling discharges are only associated with COST and 

shallow test well drilling operations exclusive to the oil and gas program, and would not occur under 

Alternative C.

4.4.10.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would reduce the extent, severity, and 

timing of seafloor disturbance impacts and remove drilling discharge impacts; therefore, impacts would 

be incrementally decreased under Alternative C. 

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are bottom sampling (cores and 

grabs); placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; and placement of 

anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10). Bottom sampling activities have the potential to affect both 

historic and prehistoric archaeological resources via physical damage.

The Alternative A scenario indicates that individual grab samples, core samples, and bottom-founded 

meteorological buoys would affect a relatively small portion of the seafloor within the AOI 

(Chapter 3.5.1.8). As discussed in Chapter 4.2.10.2, the impacts from seafloor-disturbing activities area 

expected to be negligible for Alternative A. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that 

include bottom sampling are associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. 

The removal of the oil and gas exploration activities would only slightly reduce the overall number of 
4-292 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

bottom samples taken (50-300 samples) (Table 3-4), and all other seafloor-disturbing activities could still 

occur under Alternative C. Because of the rich maritime history and potential for submerged prehistoric 

resources in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas, all activities that disturb the seafloor would be 

subject to an avoidance survey as outlined by BOEM’s Guidelines for Providing Geological and 

Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 285 (USDOI, BOEM, 

2012b) in order to ensure that historic and prehistoric submerged cultural resources are not impacted. If 

existing protective measures and lease stipulations are followed, then no adverse impacts to submerged 

cultural resources are anticipated, and impacts to archaeological resources from seafloor disturbance 

associated with G&G activities would be negligible under Alternative C. If, during the course of G&G 

activity, it is determined that a potential shipwreck or prehistoric site has been located, the operator must 

immediately halt operations and take the necessary steps to ensure that the site is not disturbed further. 

BOEM must also be notified within 48 hr of the discovery.

4.4.10.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on archaeological resources would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.10.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill 

at the sea surface would be unlikely to have any effect.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. A small 

diesel spill is expected to disperse and weather rapidly, with evaporation of volatile components. 

Particulate matter contaminated with diesel fuel would eventually reach the seafloor, either within or 

outside the AOI, depending upon spill location, water depth, ambient currents, and sinking rate. 

However, given the relatively small size of the spill and the loss of most spilled fuel through evaporation 

and dispersion, a small diesel fuel spill at the surface would have no effect on the seafloor and would not 

require seafloor cleanup activity. An accidental diesel fuel spill would be expected to result in negligible

impacts to archaeological resources. 

4.4.10.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.10.1 and 4.4.10.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible impacts to archaeological resources as a result of 

seafloor disturbance and accidental events; no impacts would result from drilling discharges because no 

COST or shallow test wells would be drilled. The same IPFs would contribute to the cumulative 

activities scenario under Alternative C. The cumulative activities scenario for archaeological resources, 

as outlined in Chapter 4.2.10.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas 

development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG 

terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space 

program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable 

infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; 

(2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis 

identified only negligible incremental increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. Under the 

Alternative C cumulative activities scenario, G&G activity under the oil and gas program would not occur 

along with the associated impacts. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be slightly 

reduced, but this minor decrease would not be enough to modify the cumulative impacts determined 

under Alternative A and would still result in a negligible incremental increase in impacts from seafloor 

disturbance and accidental events for Alternative C. No incremental impacts from drilling discharges 

would be expected under Alternative C.

4.4.11. Marine Protected Areas

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. Applicable routine IPFs for MPAs from renewable energy development and marine minerals 

activities are active acoustic sound sources (e.g., electromechanical noise sources including subbottom 

profilers, depth sounders, side-scan sonar), trash and debris, and seafloor disturbance. Drilling discharges
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-293

are only associated with COST and shallow test well drilling operations exclusive to the oil and gas 

program and would not occur under Alternative C.

4.4.11.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would reduce the extent, severity, and 

timing of active acoustic sound sources, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance impacts, and remove 

drilling discharge impacts; therefore, impacts would be incrementally decreased under Alternative C. 

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

BOEM does not anticipate that airguns would be necessary for renewable energy site assessment 

activities. Of the various G&G activities discussed in Chapter 3, the oil and gas program would account 

for most of the airgun and electromechanical noise sources and have the largest potential for affecting 

MPAs. Additionally, because of the nature of renewable energy and marine minerals projects (i.e., their 

limited spatial distribution, occurring within 46 km [25 nmi] from shore or 40 m [131 ft] water depth), 

activities associated with the oil and gas program have a greater potential to affect MPAs through noise. 

Under Alternative C, oil and gas activities would not occur, but other non-airgun G&G surveys 

(HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys) would be performed as part of renewable energy and marine 

minerals activities. Under Alternative C, impacts from active acoustic sound sources would be decreased; 

impacts would be negligible for the various MPA resources affected. Airgun noise impacts would be 

eliminated and electromechanical impacts would be reduced under Alternative C. Impacts to MPA 

resources from electromechanical sources would be negligible. 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.11, depending on the distance from survey project areas to an NMS and 

sensitive species and habitats contained therein, noise-generating activities from G&G surveys associated 

with renewable energy and marine minerals projects could potentially affect benthic communities, marine 

mammals, sea turtles, marine and coastal birds, and fisheries resources and EFH, any of which may be 

present within an NMS. Cultural or archaeological resources would also be present; however, no impacts 

to these resources from noise sources are expected.

The active acoustic sound sources associated with Alternative C are mid- and high-frequencies that 

are not anticipated to be detected by benthic communities or invertebrates; therefore, there would be 

no impacts to benthic communities within NMSs from active acoustic sound sources under Alternative C.

Authorization for renewable energy or marine minerals activities may require mitigation measures or 

best management practices as conditions of approval. With these mitigation measures, it is not expected 

that the impacts of noise from under Alternative C would adversely affect either listed or protected marine 

mammal species that may be present in an NMS. Impacts from noise associated with active acoustic

sound sources are expected to be negligible. 

Active acoustic sound sources under Alternative C (e.g., side-scan sonars, subbottom profilers, and 

depth sounders) usually operate at one or two (sometimes three) main operating frequencies, which 

typically fall in the range from 2-900 kHz. While the majority of these frequencies are higher than the 

functional hearing range of sea turtles (i.e., turtle hearing at 100 Hz-1.6 kHz) and are not likely to be 

heard by them, the lower frequency sources (e.g., boomer, sparker) fall within their hearing range. 

Therefore, impacts from active acoustic sound sources on sea turtles are expected to be negligible. 

Seabirds and waterfowl that rest on the water surface or shallow-dive for only short durations would 

not come in contact with active acoustic sounds generated from G&G surveys, or the contact would be for 

such a short time that it would result in a negligible impact. Diving seabirds and waterfowl could be 

susceptible to active acoustic sounds generated from side-scan sonar and subbottom profilers. However, 

these seismic pulses are highly directive, with beam widths as narrow as few degrees or narrower; the 

ramifications of this directionality include a lower risk of high level exposure to diving birds that may 

forage close to (but lateral to) a seismic vessel. Based on the low-frequency equipment used for 

non-airgun HRG surveys, mortality or life-threatening injury is not expected and little disruption of 

behavioral patterns or other non-injurious effects would occur, resulting in a negligible impact. The 

mobile nature of the surveys, short duration, as well as the temporary surveying of small areas of the 
4-294 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

seafloor relative to the overall area, and the propensity of fishes to move away from noise that is affecting 

them, suggest that impacts would be negligible to fisheries and EFH. 

Impacts to recreational resources are unlikely to occur because recreational fishing activities and 

watersports such as diving are likely to be precluded in advance of a G&G survey for safety purposes. 

The transient interference from survey vessels would have negligible impacts to recreational resources in 

NMSs where fishing is allowed.

Other Federal Fishery Management Areas

HRG surveys are not precluded from deepwater MPAs; however, all of the deepwater MPAs are 

located farther offshore than the areas surveyed for renewable energy and mineral mining activities 

(e.g., <46 km [25 nmi] from shore or 40 m [131 ft] water depth for renewable energy, water depths 

between 10 and 30 m [33 and 98 ft] for marine minerals). Therefore, there would be no impact to MPAs 

from G&G survey activities under Alternative C. 

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

Noise from G&G surveys also could potentially affect fishes, marine mammals, and sea turtles in 

coastal MPAs, despite their location outside the main G&G survey areas. Impacts to fishes, marine 

mammals, and sea turtles under Alternative C in coastal MPAs range from no impact to negligible, 

especially since most coastal MPAs lie inshore of the main G&G survey areas. Impacts to benthic 

organisms, primarily invertebrates, in these coastal MPAs from noise generated from G&G surveys are 

also not expected. Overall, such impacts would be expected to range between negligible and minor at the 

population level. Noise emanating from G&G survey activities is unlikely to affect biological, cultural, or 

archaeological resources contained in coastal/State-designated MPAs (e.g., shipwrecks such as the 

Queen Anne’s Revenge and in artificial reefs). 

Trash and Debris

All survey vessels performing work within U.S. jurisdictional waters are required to comply with 

Federal regulations, which include MARPOL 73/78. In addition, it remains to be determined if 

case-by-case review and approval of marine minerals and renewable energy surveys would include 

guidance for marine debris awareness. Therefore, with required compliance with Federal regulations, the 

amount of trash and debris dumped offshore would be minimal as only accidental loss of trash and debris 

is anticipated. However, due to the small anticipated amount of accidentally lost trash and debris, impacts 

would be unchanged under Alternative C (negligible). 

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are bottom sampling (cores and 

grabs); placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; and placement of 

anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10). Placement of equipment on the seafloor can and would damage 

areas where direct contact with the seafloor occurs. BOEM would require site-specific information 

regarding potential sensitive benthic communities (including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral

communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior to approving any G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM 

would use this information to ensure that physical impacts to sensitive benthic communities are avoided. 

Therefore, seafloor-disturbing impacts to sensitive benthic communities within MPAs are expected to be 

avoided.

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Federal regulations prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS (Chapter 4.2.11.2). Given these 

restrictions, seafloor disturbance within NMS waters from G&G activities would not occur. Under 

Alternative C, no impact to benthic communities or archaeological/cultural resources in NMSs would be 

expected from G&G activities.
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-295

Additionally, under the renewable energy program, BOEM has issued Guidelines for Providing 

Geological and Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 285

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012b). The guidelines specify that a site characterization survey must reliably cover 

any portion of the site that would be affected by all seafloor-disturbing activities and recommend 

avoidance as a primary mitigation strategy for objects of historical or archaeological significance.

Other Federal Fishery Management Areas

HRG surveys are not precluded from deepwater MPAs; however, all of the deepwater MPAs are 

located farther offshore than the areas surveyed for renewable energy and mineral mining activities 

(e.g., <46 km [25 nmi] from shore or 40 m [131 ft] water depth for renewable energy, water depths 

between 10 and 30 m [33 and 98 ft] for marine minerals). Therefore, there would be no impact to MPAs 

from G&G survey activities under Alternative C. 

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

G&G surveys involving seafloor disturbance could potentially affect benthic organisms, primarily 

invertebrates, in coastal MPAs. Overall, such impacts would be expected to be negligible in terms of 

potential impacts at the population level. Seafloor disturbance from G&G survey activities are unlikely to 

be allowed in coastal MPAs that contain submerged cultural or archaeological resources (e.g., shipwrecks 

such as the Queen Anne’s Revenge and in artificial reefs). Therefore, seafloor disturbances are not likely 

to affect biological and archaeological resources in these coastal MPAs.

4.4.11.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on archaeological resources would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.11.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill 

at the sea surface would be unlikely to have any effect.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. A small 

diesel spill is expected to disperse and weather rapidly, with evaporation of volatile components. Such 

small spills are unlikely to significantly affect biota, habitats, and submerged cultural resources within 

each NMS and coastal MPAs. All survey activity would take place inshore of the deepwater MPAs; 

therefore, there would be no impacts within deepwater MPAs. Marine and coastal birds could possibly 

contact spilled fuel, which could cause injury or mortality. However, while individual birds may be oiled 

during a diesel spill, such impacts would be unlikely to affect marine and coastal birds at a population 

level. Impacts are expected to range between negligible and moderate. 

4.4.11.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.11.1 and 4.4.11.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible to minor impacts to MPAs as a result of active 

acoustic sound sources (i.e., electromechanical sources), seafloor disturbance, and accidental events. The 

same IPFs would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario under Alternative C. The cumulative 

activities scenario for MPAs, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.11.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable 

activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine 

minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; 

(7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; 

(9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact

sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative 

vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified negligible to minor incremental increases in 

impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. Under the Alternative C cumulative activities scenario, G&G

activity under the oil and gas program would not occur along with the associated impacts; active acoustic 

sound sources (i.e., airguns) and drilling discharge impacts would not occur. Therefore, impacts to MPAs 

would be slightly reduced, but this minor decrease would not modify the cumulative impacts determined 
4-296 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

under Alternative A. Negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts from all IPFs would occur 

under the cumulative scenario as a result of Alternative C.

4.4.12. Other Marine Uses

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. Applicable routine IPFs for other marine uses from renewable energy development and marine 

minerals activities are vessel traffic, onshore support activities, seafloor disturbance. Alternative C would 

not include any aeromagnetic surveys or installation of COST or shallow test wells; therefore, there 

would be no impacts from aircraft traffic or noise. 

4.4.12.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would reduce the extent, severity, and 

timing of vessel traffic and seafloor disturbance; therefore, impacts for these IPFs would be incrementally 

decreased under Alternative C. Aircraft traffic and associated noise would be eliminated under 

Alternative C. Vessel traffic and seafloor disturbance are discussed below.

Vessel Traffic

Vessel traffic associated with G&G activities under Alternative C would increase in specific areas, 

thereby increasing the potential for interference with other marine uses such as shipping and marine 

transportation, military range complexes and civilian space program use, sand and gravel mining, 

ODMDSs, communication and research activities from bottom-founded structures, and known sea bottom 

obstructions. Under Alternative C, airguns would not be utilized, thus eliminating the vessel exclusion 

zones associated with airgun arrays and towed streamers. Renewable energy and marine minerals surveys 

typically involve only a single survey vessel, and vessel traffic would not be significantly increased when 

compared to existing vessel traffic in nearshore or offshore waters. Survey vessels related to renewable 

energy or marine minerals activities would be relatively small and are expected to make daily round trips 

to their shore base. The renewable energy scenario would require 4,255 vessel round trips for HRG

surveys and 3,106-9,969 vessel round trips for geotechnical surveys over the 9-year timeframe analyzed 

in this Programmatic EIS. The marine minerals scenario would require 180 vessel round trips for HRG 

surveys and 93-615 vessel round trips for geotechnical surveys over the 9-year timeframe analyzed in this 

Programmatic EIS. If smaller ports are used for the smaller vessels (approximately 20 m [66 ft]) 

deployed for the types of surveys required for the renewable energy and marine minerals programs, there 

could be limited effects from the increased vessel traffic on port capacity, navigation into the port, and the 

potential for accidents. Impacts to large ports from G&G vessel traffic are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts on smaller ports are expected to range from negligible to minor and should be evaluated on a 

project-specific basis.

Seafloor Disturbance

Sources of seafloor disturbance that may result from G&G activities are bottom sampling (cores and 

grabs); placement of anchors, nodes, cables, or other bottom-founded equipment; and placement of 

anchored monitoring buoys (Table 3-10). Placement of equipment on the seafloor can and would damage 

areas where direct contact with the seafloor occurs.

The proposed action scenario indicates that individual grab samples, core samples, and 

bottom-founded meteorological buoys would affect a relatively small portion of the seafloor within the 

AOI (Chapter 3.5.1.8). As discussed in Chapter 4.2.12.2, the impacts from seafloor-disturbing activities 

were determined to be negligible. Most of the proposed activities under Alternative A that include 

bottom sampling are associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas. The 

removal of the oil and gas exploration activities would only slightly reduce the overall number of bottom 

samples taken (50-300 samples) (Table 3-4), and all other seafloor-disturbing activities could still occur 

under Alternative C. Two activities under Alternative C (renewable energy development and marine 

minerals surveys) are consistent with the ongoing use of specific other marine uses (sand and gravel 

mining and renewable energy development), and one activity is in direct conflict with Alternative C (oil 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-297

and gas exploration) and would not be occurring. These activities will not be analyzed in this discussion 

since activities consistent with or not occurring will not impact other marine uses.

G&G activities that could cause seafloor disturbance would not impact shipping and marine 

transportation. Coordination with DoD and NASA would occur for seafloor-disturbing activities or 

placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures (including requiring site-specific information) to 

reduce or eliminate potential impacts to military range complex and NASA areas; impacts to 

communication and research activities from bottom-founded structures would be negligible. The G&G 

activities that could cause seafloor disturbance would avoid ODMDSs. As a result, G&G activities would 

not impact ODMDSs. BOEM would require site-specific information regarding potential archaeological

resources and sensitive benthic communities (including hard/live bottom areas, deepwater coral

communities, and chemosynthetic communities) prior to approving any G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the AOI. BOEM 

would use this information to ensure that there are no physical impacts to archaeological resources and 

other sea bottom obstructions. Therefore, impacts to known sea bottom obstructions would be negligible. 

4.4.12.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on recreational resources would be very 

similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.12.3). The analysis concluded that a small spill 

at the sea surface would be unlikely to have any effect.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. A small 

diesel spill is expected to disperse and weather rapidly, with evaporation of volatile components. The 

impacts would depend on the size and location of the spill, in addition to the meteorological conditions. 

If a small diesel spill were to occur, it would have negligible impact on other marine uses, since it would 

only prohibit full use of a small area by other marine users for a very limited amount of time.

4.4.12.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.12.1 and 4.4.12.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts to other 

marine uses as a result of vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, seafloor disturbance, and accidental 

events, depending on the IPF. The same IPFs would contribute to the cumulative activities scenario 

under Alternative C. The cumulative activities scenario for other marine uses, as outlined in 

Chapter 4.2.12.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; 

(2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use; (4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; 

(6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range complexes and civilian space program use; 

(8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. 

Three broader cumulative impact sources also were identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise 

in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The cumulative impact analysis identified incremental 

increases in impacts from all IPFs under Alternative A. Under Alternative C there would be no activities 

associated with oil and gas exploration, which would only slightly incrementally decrease the cumulative 

impacts. However, this small decrease in impacts from Alternative C would not change the overall 

cumulative impacts and would still result in negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts from 

vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, seafloor disturbance, and accidental events.

4.4.13. Human Resources and Land Use

Under Alternative C, only activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals would 

occur. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.13, applicable routine IPFs for human resources and land use from 

renewable energy development and marine minerals activities are the potential effects of onshore support 

activities.
4-298 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.4.13.1. Impacts of Routine Activities

The elimination of G&G activities in support of oil and gas exploration under Alternative C would 

substantially lessen the number of vessels used and the potential effects to onshore support activities. In 

Chapter 4.2.13.2, it was determined that, based on the projected level of G&G survey activity and 

associated demands for shore base space, supplies, and services, impacts from onshore activities on 

human resources and land use are expected to be negligible. Under Alternative C, only smaller vessels 

(<20-30 m [65-98 ft]) associated with the renewable energy and marine minerals programs would require 

onshore support facilities (Chapters 3.3.2 and 3.4.2). Although these vessels would typically return to 

port daily and use small crews, this is a reduction in the onshore support required for Alternative A; 

therefore, the impact would be unchanged (negligible).

4.4.13.2. Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills

Under Alternative C, impacts of an accidental fuel spill on human resources and land use would be 

very similar to those analyzed for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.13.3). The analysis concluded that a small 

spill at the sea surface would have a negligible impact on human resources and land use.

Alternative C would reduce the number of surveys and vessels because of the elimination of oil and 

gas activities, but this reduction would not substantially change the risk of a small fuel spill. Overall, the 

risk of a small fuel spill and the potential impacts on human resources and land use would be the same as 

under Alternative A and would be negligible. 

4.4.13.3. Cumulative Impacts

Impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.4.13.1 and 4.4.13.2 determined that activities projected to 

occur under Alternative C would result in negligible impacts to human resources and land use as a result 

of onshore support facility activities and accidental events. These IPFs would also contribute to the 

cumulative activities scenario under Alternative C. The cumulative activities scenario for human 

resources and land use, as outlined in Chapter 4.2.13.4, includes 10 reasonably foreseeable activities in 

the AOI: (1) oil and gas development; (2) renewable energy development; (3) marine minerals use;

(4) geosequestration; (5) LNG terminals; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; (7) military range 

complexes and civilian space program use; (8) shipping and marine transportation; (9) dredged material 

disposal; and (10) new cable infrastructure. Three broader cumulative impact sources also were 

identified: (1) climate change; (2) cumulative noise in the sea; and (3) cumulative vessel activity. The

cumulative impact analysis identified only negligible incremental increases in impacts from onshore 

facility activities and negligible to minor incremental increases in impacts for accidental events under 

Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.13.4). Under Alternative C there would be no G&G activities associated with 

oil and gas exploration, but this would not change the overall cumulative impacts, resulting in negligible

incremental increases in impacts from onshore facility activities and negligible to minor incremental 

increases in impacts for accidental events under Alternative C. 

4.5. OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS

4.5.1. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action

NEPA regulations require an EIS to disclose any adverse environmental effects that cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be implemented (40 CFR § 1502.16).

The use of airguns during seismic airgun surveys for oil and gas exploration and development would

result in unavoidable Level B harassment of marine mammals and may cause behavioral responses in sea 

turtles and fishes. Mortality or injury to marine mammals and sea turtles is expected to be avoided to the 

maximum extent practicable through protective measures included in the proposed action, including 

time-area closures and operational mitigation measures as described in Chapter 2 and Appendix C. 

However, some marine mammals may be exposed to sound levels that constitute Level A harassment and 

that may induce TTS or PTS. 

During HRG surveys, the use of other acoustic sources such as side-scan sonars; boomer, sparker, and 

chirp subbottom profilers; and multibeam depth sounders may cause behavioral responses in marine 
Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis 4-299

mammals that would also constitute Level B harassment. Mortality or injury to marine mammals and sea 

turtles is expected to be avoided through protective measures included in the proposed action, including 

time-area closures and operational mitigation measures as described in Chapter 2 and Appendix C. It is 

highly unlikely that these animals would be exposed to sound levels that constitute Level A harassment

(in marine mammals) or that may induce TTS or PTS during these HRG surveys. Some other 

unavoidable adverse effects on marine life would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed action. 

For example, seafloor-disturbing activities such as geological and geotechnical sampling and placement 

of bottom-founded equipment or structures would inevitably disturb soft bottom benthic communities. 

Impacts to sensitive benthic communities (such as coral, hard/live bottom, and chemosynthetic 

communities) are expected to be avoided, as BOEM would require site-specific information prior to 

approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures in the AOI. The magnitude of unavoidable benthic community impacts is 

expected to be negligible. 

4.5.2. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

NEPA regulations require an EIS to identify any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (40 CFR § 1502.16). 

Resources include renewable and nonrenewable natural resources, including fish and wildlife habitat. 

A commitment of resources is irreversible when project impacts limit the future options for a resource or 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long-term. It applies primarily to the effects of use of 

non-renewable resources, which are those resources that cannot be replenished by natural means, such as 

oil, natural gas, iron ore, and cultural resources. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or 

consumption of a resource that is neither renewable nor recoverable (e.g., the disturbance of a cultural 

site) for use by future generations or is lost for a period of time.

If chosen by BOEM, the Preferred Alternative discussed in this Programmatic EIS would provide for 

the development of a permitting/authorization process to allow industry to conduct surveys to investigate 

the geology and geophysics of the seafloor within the AOI. Under the Preferred Alternative, both oil and 

gas G&G activities and marine minerals G&G activities would require additional BOEM environmental 

reviews and approvals prior to the commencement of any “on the water” activities that could impact the 

environment. At the time of these reviews, BOEM has the opportunity to request or require additional 

mitigations if warranted. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior retains the discretion under OCSLA to, 

among others, cancel or suspend plans, activities, and permits at any time, so as to protect the 

environment (see 43 U.S.C. § 1334(a)). Finally, for G&G activities related to renewable energy, BOEM 

requires that postlease G&G activities comply with mitigation measures included in the lease stipulations.

In terms of renewable resources, should the proposed action proceed and ultimately result in G&G

activities, they would not result in the destruction of marine resources such that the range of potential uses 

of the marine environment would be limited. Nonrenewable resources that would be consumed during 

the operation of survey vessels, should the G&G activities proceed, include fuel and oil. There would be 

no building or facility construction, so the consumption of materials typically associated with such 

construction (concrete, metal, sand, fuel, etc.) would not occur. Energy typically associated with 

construction activities would not be expended and irretrievably lost. The proposed surveys would also 

require a commitment of human labor and financial resources. Since the reuse of these resources may not 

be possible, they would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed as part of the proposed seismic airgun

surveys. Nonetheless, commitment of these resources would not be expected to be significant. While 

cultural resources are distributed throughout the AOI, none would be irreversibly and irretrievably 

committed or lost should the proposed action be implemented. No critical habitat associated with 

threatened or endangered species would be lost as result of implementation of the proposed action and 

subsequent implementation of G&G activities, should they occur.

4.5.3. Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

The NEPA regulations require an EIS to analyze the relationship between a project’s short-term 

impacts on the environment and the effects those impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement 

of the long-term productivity of the affected environment (40 CFR § 1502.16). Impacts that narrow the 
4-300 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. The proposed G&G surveys would 

allow industry to investigate the geology and geophysics of the seafloor within the AOI. This action 

would require both short-term and long-term commitments of human labor and financial resources. 

Nonrenewable resources that would be consumed during the operation of seismic research vessels include 

fuel and oil. The planned monitoring and mitigation measures, which include avoiding sensitive habitats 

and/or seasons, visual monitoring, and safety radii, would all serve to minimize the effects of the 

proposed surveys. The majority of effects from G&G surveys would be temporary in nature. As a result, 

implementation of the proposed action would not result in any environmental impacts that would 

significantly affect the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the marine 

environment.
CHAPTER 5 

 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Consultation and Coordination 5-3

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

BOEM has prepared this Final Programmatic EIS to evaluate reasonably foreseeable impacts to the 

marine environment from G&G survey activities in Federal and State waters of the Mid- and South 

Atlantic OCS for three program areas: oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals. BOEM 

conducted early coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other concerned parties to 

develop the proposed action in this Final Programmatic EIS. Key agencies and organizations were 

contacted, including the NMFS. Based on the information and analysis presented in Chapter 4, this 

Programmatic EIS presents the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives in 

comparative form, defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by decision 

makers and the public.

5.2. NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A PROGRAMMATIC EIS

The NOI to prepare a Programmatic EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2009 

(Federal Register, 2009a). The NOI included a Call for Interest to industry to solicit information on any 

potential interest for future G&G activities on the Atlantic OCS. The comment period on the initial NOI 

closed on March 23, 2009; however, BOEM did not move forward on the Programmatic EIS at that time. 

During the first scoping period the agency received 17 comments by email, mostly from industry or 

non-governmental interest groups.

On April 2, 2010, a Federal Register notice was published announcing the reopening of the public 

comment period for the Programmatic EIS and listing the dates, times, and locations (Chapter 5.3) of 

public scoping meetings (Federal Register, 2010c). The public comment period closed on May 17, 2010. 

The purpose of the scoping meetings was to solicit comments from stakeholders on the scope of the 

Programmatic EIS, identify issues to be analyzed, and identify possible alternatives and mitigation

measures. The scope and content of this Programmatic EIS has been formulated to ensure that the issues 

and concerns expressed by stakeholders during the scoping process have been fully addressed.

5.3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS

BOEM as lead agency, along with NMFS and BSEE as cooperating agencies, prepared a Draft 

Programmatic EIS in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 1502.20),

USDOI Implementing Procedures for NEPA (Federal Register, 2008e), and NOAA procedures for 

implementing NEPA (USDOC, NOAA, 1999).

BOEM initiated the scoping process to assist with the identification of relevant environmental issues 

to be analyzed in the Draft Programmatic EIS. The process was used to identify and eliminate from 

further detailed study issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental 

review, or that did not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. The scoping process was 

directed at Federal, State, local, and tribal governments; commercial interests; environmental groups; and 

the general public. 

Public scoping meetings were held for the purpose of soliciting comments from stakeholders on the 

scope of the Draft Programmatic EIS, identifying issues to be analyzed, and identifying possible 

alternatives and mitigation measures. In addition to accepting oral and written comments at each public 

meeting, BOEM accepted written comments by mail and through a dedicated email address. The 

locations and dates were as follows:
5-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Houston, Texas

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Marriott Houston Intercontinental Hotel

George Bush Intercontinental Airport

One meeting

Jacksonville, Florida

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Marriott Hotel

4760 Salisbury Road

Two meetings

Savannah, Georgia

Friday, April 23, 2010

Coastal Georgia Center

305 Fahm Street

Two meetings

Newark, New Jersey

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Sheraton Newark Airport Hotel

Two meetings

North Charleston, South Carolina

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Embassy Suites

5055 International Boulevard

Two meetings

Norfolk, Virginia

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Hilton Norfolk Airport

1500 N. Military Highway

Two meetings

Wilmington, North Carolina

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Hilton Wilmington Riverside

301 North Water Street

Two meetings

5.3.1. Comments Received During Scoping

During the initial scoping period, January 21-March 23, 2009, BOEM received a total of 17 email 

comments from State agencies (6), non-governmental interest groups (5), industry operators (2), 

geophysical contractors (3), and a member of the public. For the second scoping period, April 2, 2010 to 

May 17, 2010, BOEM received a total of 965 comments through email (75%), formal letters (18%), and 

public meeting testimony (7%). The latter included both oral and written comments submitted at the 

public meetings. Comments were received from individuals and organizations in 49 U.S. states and two 

foreign countries (Canada and France). Most of the comments were received from private citizens. Other 

sources included Federal, State, and local government agencies, members of Congress, and other 

stakeholders. The Other Stakeholders category comprises representatives from environmental groups, 

industry groups and companies, engineering and consulting firms, and oil and gas companies. 

A total of 798 comments was received that expressed concerns, issues, or recommendations specific

to G&G activities (123) and comments relating to both offshore drilling activities and G&G activities 

(675). Of these comments, 80 percent were opposed to G&G activities, 13 percent supported them, and 

7 percent were neutral. Many of the comments cited broad concerns; comments that focused on particular 

resources generally fell into one of three categories: (1) biological resources; (2) socioeconomics, 

cultural resources, and other marine uses; and (3) recommendations for alternatives or mitigation to be 

considered in the Programmatic EIS. 

The scope and content of the Programmatic EIS were formulated to ensure the issues and concerns 

expressed by stakeholders during the scoping process were fully addressed.

5.3.2. Cooperating Agency

BOEM is required, per 43 CFR § 46.225, to invite eligible government entities to participate as 

cooperating agencies during the development of an EIS. As defined by CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 

1508.5), a cooperating agency may be any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise 

with respect to environmental impacts expected from a proposal. The NOI, published on January 21, 

2009, issued an invitation to other Federal agencies and State, tribal, and local governments to consider 

becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of the Programmatic EIS. During the 2009 scoping 

period, BOEM received no expressions of interest by any Federal, State, or local government agency 

having jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to becoming a cooperating agency.
Consultation and Coordination 5-5

It has been this Agency’s practice to invite interest in cooperating agency relationships in the NOI to 

prepare an EIS that is published in the Federal Register. BOEM also issued letters (included in 

Appendix K) on March 18, 2011, to the Northeast and Southeast regional offices of NMFS inviting the 

agency to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Programmatic EIS. NMFS 

responded in a letter dated April 25, 2011 (also included in Appendix K), expressing interest in serving 

in that capacity through the NEPA process. The nature and scope of the proposed action involving the 

use of acoustic sources and the potential impacts to marine resources under the jurisdiction of NMFS, 

particularly marine mammals and sensitive marine species, including those listed or proposed for listing 

as threatened or endangered under the ESA, led to NMFS’s decision to participate as a cooperating 

agency.

An MOA delineating the roles and responsibilities of each agency was signed December 12, 2011, by 

BOEM and January 3, 2012, by NOAA (also included in Appendix K). The MOA defines the respective 

roles and responsibilities of BOEM and NMFS in the development of the Programmatic EIS. In addition 

to the regulations and requirements discussed elsewhere in this document, this Programmatic EIS has 

been reviewed by NMFS in accordance with applicable USDOC guidelines (USDOC, NOAA, 1999). 

As part of the Rule Changes for Reorganization of Title 30 (see Chapter 1.6.1), several MOAs were 

developed between BOEM and BSEE to delineate responsibilities and establish the working relationship 

between the two agencies to synchronize environmental review and environmental enforcement process 

for authorizations required to conduct conventional energy and resources activities on the OCS. An 

Environmental and NEPA MOA was established to help both agencies minimize duplication of efforts, 

promote consistency in procedures and regulations, and resolve disputes, dated October 3, 2011 (also 

included in Appendix K). The stated purpose of the Environmental and NEPA MOA is that “BSEE will 

serve as a cooperating agency on BOEM NEPA documents. There is a clear expectation that serving as a 

cooperating agency where practicable will be the standard protocol for any BOEM NEPA analysis that 

BSEE may adopt for its decisions.”

On April 7, 2011, BOEM headquarters contacted by email an extended contact list of 

COE representatives in East Coast offices and explained the proposed action that BOEM was preparing to 

evaluate in this Programmatic EIS. 

On April 27, 2011, BOEM’s NEPA coordinator for this Programmatic EIS contacted Daniel Small of 

the COE South Atlantic Division office in Atlanta, Georgia, by telephone and follow up email the same 

day to provide a schedule and other supporting information that acquainted the COE with the proposed 

action BOEM was evaluating and to ask if the COE was interested in exploring the possibility of 

becoming a cooperating agency for this NEPA evaluation.

On May 5, 2011, headquarters staff and the NEPA coordinator teleconferenced with Joseph Wilson 

and Daniel Small of the COE to answer questions about the NEPA evaluation and to be sure there were 

no further questions.

On May 16, 2011, BOEM headquarters contacted Daniel Small, Joseph Wilson, and Henry Wicker of 

the COE to provide additional information as follow-up to the May 5 teleconference. Finally, on 

May 17, 2011, Jill Lewandowski was identified to Daniel Small, Megan Gaffney-Smith, John Furry, 

Katherine Trott, Henry Wicker, and Joseph Wilson as BOEM’s point of contact for this NEPA evaluation 

if there were any questions.

On August 10, 2011, BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico Region staff contacted Janet Mizzi, Ken Graham, and 

Glenn Smith of FWS by email to ask if FWS wished to discuss the possibility of becoming a cooperating 

agency and any questions about the associated ESA Section 7 consultation that would accompany the 

NEPA process. No response was received from the FWS.

In early April 2010, this Agency (MMS at the time) launched a series of related but independent 

activities with announcements in the Federal Register. A narrative explaining how these relate to our 

contacts with NASA is summarized below. 

On April 2, 2010, MMS published a Federal Register notice (Federal Register, 2010l) for the 

Preliminary Revised Program Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 2007-2012 

that included a lease sale on the OCS offshore Virginia in 2012. In a letter, NASA expressed its concern 

about potential effects that oil and gas development off the coast of Virginia would have on the operations 

and mission at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). They also expressed an interest in becoming a 

cooperating agency for the Five-Year Revised Program EIS.
5-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

On November 13, 2008, MMS published an NOI to prepare an EIS (Federal Register, 2008d) for 

proposed Lease Sale 220. In scoping comments, NASA again expressed concern about the compatibility 

of oil and gas activity with the operations and mission of WFF. In their comments, NASA requested to 

become a cooperating agency under NEPA for the Sale 220 EIS. The Agency had yet to act on NASA’s 

request when the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and response occurred on April 20, 2010.

On January 21, 2009, MMS published the NOI to prepare a Programmatic EIS for G&G activities in 

the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas (Federal Register, 2009a). On May 17, 2010, the last day for 

comments on the draft G&G Programmatic EIS NOI, representatives from the BOEM Gulf of Mexico 

Region office teleconferenced with NASA personnel and discussed NASA’s concerns about mission 

compatibility with BOEM-managed activities. During that teleconference, NASA personnel confirmed 

that the activities for proposed lease sales were of more interest to NASA/WFF because of the potential 

for surface facilities to be built as a result of leasing. During that same time period, The Secretary of the 

Interior decided to cancel the proposed Lease Sale 220 on May 7, 2010 (Federal Register, 2010k). Due 

to the intermittent and temporary water surface presence associated with G & G activities and the fact that 

no surface facilities could be constructed associated with G&G activities, BOEM did not pursue 

cooperating agency status with NASA related to the Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS. 

BOEM and NASA have continued to coordinate related to the Atlantic G& G Programmatic EIS. 

NASA has provided information regarding their specific concerns about BOEM managed activities on the 

surface. Those concerns fall into the following three categories: (1) risk to private or State investment 

and personnel from competing space-use in an active and hazardous rocket and target launch range; (2) 

impact of private or State investment that leads to unacceptable restrictions on NASA and DoD 

operations in order to meet safety requirements that will likely result in WFF no longer being one of the 

Nation’s few viable launch and test sites; and (3) adverse impacts on NASA’s partnership with the 

commercial space sector represented at WFF by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS). NASA 

provided comments on the Atlantic G&G Draft Programmatic EIS. Those comments have been 

addressed and where appropriate incorporated into the Final Programmatic EIS as stipulations. NASA 

stipulations can be found in Chapter 3.6.7 and Appendix C 3.1.5. BOEM will continue to coordinate 

with NASA to help ensure future spatial use conflicts are avoided.

5.4. DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS FOR REVIEW AND 

COMMENT

BOEM sent copies of the Draft Programmatic EIS to non-governmental organizations; Federal, State, 

and local government agencies; and Indian Tribes. Tribal nations along the Atlantic seaboard from 

Massachusetts to Florida were contacted in the spirit of the USDOI Tribal consultation policy (USDOI, 

2011b). Federal depository libraries in the seven states adjacent to the AOI were notified of availability 

of the Draft Programmatic EIS.

To initiate the public review and comment period on the Draft Programmatic EIS, BOEM took the 

following actions: the Agency (1) published Notice of Availability for the Draft Programmatic EIS in the 

Federal Register on March 30, 2012 (Federal Register, 2012f), opening a 60-day comment period 

originally scheduled to close on May 30, 2012. The comment period for the Draft Programmatic EIS was 

extended for an additional 30 days on June 4, 2012 (Federal Register, 2012g) until July 2, 2012. The 

comment period included the additional 4 days between the initial closing period until the reopening was 

published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2012, resulting in a total of 94 days for the comment period. 

All comments received between May 31 and June 3, 2012 are (1) included as part of the Programmatic 

EIS administrative record; (2) mailed public notices that reported the availability of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS and how to comment to all of the groups and agencies identified below; (3) emailed a 

group notification that reported availability of the Draft Programmatic EIS and how to comment to all 

people who had furnished BOEM with their email address during scoping or who had requested to be on 

such a mailing list; (4) placed multiple newspaper notices announcing availability of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS, all public meeting locations and times, and how to comment on the document in each 

of the newspapers that served local media markets (The Florida Times-Union, Savannah Morning News, 

The Post and Courier, The Virginia Pilot, Wilmington Star News, The Capital, Dover Post, and The Press 

of Atlantic City); and (5) posted the Draft Programmatic EIS on the BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS 
Consultation and Coordination 5-7

Region’s Internet website (http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx). 

All comments received on the Draft Programmatic EIS were considered during preparation of the Final 

Programmatic EIS.

In accordance with BOEM’s policy of consultation and coordination with State and local 

governments, on March 28, 2012, BOEM mailed official letters to the Governor’s Offices of all States 

along the Atlantic coast that may have an interest in providing input on the proposed G&G activities on 

the Atlantic OCS. The following Governor’s Offices were included:

The Honorable Chris Christie

Governor of New Jersey

Trenton, NJ 08625

The Honorable Jack Markell

Governor of Delaware

Wilmington, DE 19801

The Honorable Martin O’Malley

Governor of Maryland

Annapolis, MD 21401

The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell

Governor of Virginia

Richmond, VA 23219

The Honorable Beverly Perdue

Governor of North Carolina

Raleigh, NC 27699

The Honorable Nikki Haley

Governor of South Carolina

Columbia, SC 29211

The Honorable Nathan Deal

Governor of Georgia

Atlanta, GA 30334

The Honorable Richard Scott

Governor of Florida

Tallahassee, FL 32399

In the letters, BOEM announced the availability of the Draft Programmatic EIS and provided the 

public meetings schedule to give interested parties an opportunity to comment. The Draft Programmatic 

EIS as well as a compact disk with a digital version of the EIS was provided for review.

On May 30, 2012, BOEM mailed letters announcing the extension of the comment period for the 

Draft Programmatic EIS to each of the above-mentioned Governor’s Offices. The Notice of Availability

for the Draft Programmatic EIS was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2012 

(Federal Register, 2012f), opening a 60-day comment period originally scheduled to close on May 30, 

2012. BOEM extended the comment period by 30 days until July 2, 2012.

5.5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

In accordance with 30 CFR § 556.26, BOEM scheduled public hearings at eight locations in 

communities in the coastal area adjacent to the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas to solicit 

comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS. The hearings provided the Secretary of the Interior with 

information from interested parties to help in the evaluation of potential effects of the proposed action. 

An announcement of the dates, times, and locations of the public hearings was included in the Notice of 

Availability for the Draft Programmatic EIS. A copy of the public hearing notices was included with the 

Draft Programmatic EIS that was mailed to the parties on BOEM’s distribution list, posted on BOEM’s 

Internet website, and published in local newspapers.

The hearings were held on the following dates and at the times and locations indicated below:
5-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

April 16, 2012 – Jacksonville Marriott

4760 Salisbury Road, Jacksonville, FL

1 p.m.: 65 registered attendees

23 speakers

7 p.m.: 24 registered attendees

13 speakers

April 18, 2012 – Coastal Georgia

Center, 305 Farm Street, Savannah, GA

1 p.m.: 15 registered attendees

7 speakers

7 p.m.: 8 registered attendees

3 speakers

April 20, 2012 – Embassy Suites North

Charleston, 5055 International

Boulevard, Charleston, SC

1 p.m.: 29 registered attendees

13 speakers

7 p.m.: 6 registered attendees

4 speakers

April 24, 2012 – Hilton Norfolk Airport

1500 N. Military Highway, Norfolk, VA

1 p.m.: 58 registered attendees

24 speakers

7 p.m.: 38 registered attendees

0 speakers

April 25, 2012 – Doubletree Hotel

210 Holiday Court, Annapolis, MD

1 p.m.: 21 registered attendees

0 speakers

7 p.m.: 5 registered attendees

19 speakers

April 26, 2012 – Sheraton Suites

422 Delaware Avenue, Wilmington, DE

1 p.m.: 10 registered attendees

4 speakers

7 p.m.: 5 registered attendees

2 speakers

April 26, 2012 – Hilton Wilmington Riverside

301 North Water Street, Wilmington, NC

1 p.m.: 73 registered attendees

23 speakers

7 p.m.: 91 registered attendees

28 speakers

April 27, 2012 – Atlantic City Convention Center

One Convention Boulevard, Atlantic City, NJ

1 p.m.: 58 registered attendees

36 speakers

5.6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC EIS

BOEM prepared this Final Programmatic EIS in accordance with CEQ regulations 

(40 CFR §§ 1502.9 and 1503). BOEM sought comments in accordance with CEQ regulations. A 60-day 

comment period was specified for public review of the Draft Programmatic EIS, which was extended an 

additional 30 days (Federal Register, 2012g). BOEM then revised the Draft Programmatic EIS, as 

necessary, in response to comments received. 

5.6.1. Major Differences Between the Draft and Final Programmatic EISs 

BOEM has made changes to the Programmatic EIS based on comments received during the public 

comment period. These changes included factual corrections, additions to existing information, and 

improvements or modifications to the analyses presented in the Draft Programmatic EIS. A summary of 

public comments received follows in Chapter 5.6.2, and BOEM’s responses to these comments are

provided in Appendix L. (All comments are available on the project website.) Revisions to the 

Final Programmatic EIS included changes to all chapters of the Programmatic EIS as well as to 

Appendices A, B, C, D, E, G, H, J, and K. 

Table 5-1 contains a summary of the major changes made as a result of comments received during 

the public comment period.

5.6.2. Letters of Comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS

During the 90-day public comment period, BOEM received 55,295 comments on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Comments were received from State and local officials; Federal, State, and local 

agencies; environmental and nongovernmental organizations; the oil and gas energy sector; and 

individuals. Comments were received in the following ways:
Consultation and Coordination 5-9

• 99 percent form letters via email; 

• 0.5 percent comment letters via email; 

• 0.4 percent at public meetings; and

• 0.1 percent by hard copy letters. 

Per CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1503.4), BOEM prepared responses to all substantive comments and 

revised portions of the Final Programmatic EIS to incorporate changes suggested by commenters. 

A complete discussion of the comment letters received during the public comment period, both comments 

received and responses, can be found in Appendix L. 

As noted in the percentages above, the overwhelming majority, 54,750, were form letter emails. Of 

the 10 form letters, 6 supported the continuing renewable energy development but opposed G&G seismic

activities for oil and gas activities in the Atlantic. Two objected to all G&G seismic activities, while the 

last two supported G&G activities for oil and gas as well as renewable energy. The majority of the form 

letters, approximately 93 percent, supported renewable energy development while opposing G&G 

surveys. Approximately 6.7 percent supported G&G activities, and the remaining less than 1 percent 

were either neutral to a particular alternative or supported Preferred Alternative, Alternative B. 

A total of 545 individual comment submissions was received from Federal, State, and local 

governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, industry, and private citizens. These were 

received as emails, mailed letters, and submissions provided during public hearings. Categories of 

comments have been grouped and are discussed below. The percentages were generated by adding the 

individual comment submissions and counting the 10 form letter emails as 10 separate individual 

comments. Thus, for calculating the following percentages in the following discussion, a total of 

555 comments was used.

5.6.2.1. General Comment Categories

5.6.2.1.1. Statements of Opinion

Many of the comment submittals expressed an opinion about the proposed action and alternatives. 

The greatest number of comments, approximately 38 percent, opposed the proposed action. Of the 

remaining comments, 26 percent supported Alternative C, the alternative that maintained the status quo 

for G&G surveying for the renewable energy and marine minerals program areas but did not include 

G&G surveying for the oil and gas program area. Approximately 20 percent supported Alternative A, 

which would allow BOEM to authorize G&G activities for all three program areas (oil and gas, renewable 

energy, and marine minerals). The comment types are summarized below. Not all commenters provided 

comments regarding the alternatives; therefore, the total percentage of comments does not equal 100.

• Opposed proposed action: 38 percent

• Supported Alternative A: 20 percent

• Supported Alternative B: 3 percent

• Supported Alternative C: 26 percent

• Neutral: 2 percent

• Other: No mention of G&G comment related to oil and gas: 9 percent

• TOTAL: 98 percent

5.6.2.1.2. Regulatory Process Comments

Approximately 20 percent of the comments received were related to the regulatory process, covering 

a wide range of issues. Federal and State regulatory agencies communicated their agency’s role for 

coordination or consultation activities driven by Federal or State laws and regulations. The Federal laws 

cited included the CZMA, ESA, MMPA, Magnuson-Stevens FCMA, CWA, MBTA, RHA, and NMSA. 

The ONMS and NMFS both requested that ongoing coordination be conducted for Marine Sanctuaries 

and EFH. A description of subsequent actions required before permits or authorizations can be issued is 

summarized in Chapter 1.7.5, and additional discussion of coordination activities can be found in 

Chapter 5.7. 
5-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

5.6.2.1.3. Alternative Analysis Methodology Comments

BOEM received comments expressing concerns regarding screening criteria and the conclusions 

drawn from the impact analysis based on the Level B 160 dB rms and Level A 180/190 dB rms criteria. 

Use of screening criteria and the calculation of take levels were based on current methodologies and the 

160 dB rms Level B criteria and the 180/190 dB rms Level A acoustic exposure criteria for 

cetaceans/pinnipeds. This is the criteria currently adopted by the Federal regulatory agency, NMFS.

5.6.2.1.4. Resource Area Comments

BOEM received comments that raised concerns about G&G activities impacting a variety of 

resources. Resources receiving the most comments were marine mammals, 41 percent; general 

environmental resources, 29 percent; commercial fisheries, 17 percent; fish and EFH, 11 percent; and sea 

turtles, 11 percent. The comments focused on concerns that operational activities would cause impacts 

from sound generation, vessel and equipment movement, and bottom-disturbing activities.

5.6.2.1.5. Mitigation Measure Comments

Approximately 10 percent of the comments addressed mitigation measures. Mitigation comments 

recommended avoidance and mitigation of impacts, addressed the proposed expanded geographic 

time-area closure area, discussed the geographic time-area closures for nesting sea turtles, discussed 

separation between simultaneous seismic airgun surveys, and recommended the use of PAM. Comments 

both supported mitigation measures and their expansion and objected to mitigation measures, indicating 

the measures were excessive or should be applied specifically to airgun surveys. Comments were also 

received that some non-airgun or HRG acoustic sources should be exempted from specific mitigation 

measures.

Comments were received calling for both the expansion and reduction of the geographic time-area 

closure for NARWs. Comments also supported increasing the closure area to a continuous band along the 

coast with a width of 30 nmi or greater from the shoreline. Similar comments were received to expand 

the sea turtle closure area to the north to North Carolina or to encompass areas further offshore. 

Comments were also received that recommended buffer zones be designed adjacent to the time-area 

closure boundaries to provide ensonification-free zones, which would effectively enlarge the time-area 

closure footprint. BOEM received comments that recommended a larger separation distance than the 

40 km proposed for concurrent airgun surveys in Alternative B. Other commenters opposed the 

separation distance and the methodology used to develop the separation distance. Comments were also 

received in support of utilizing PAM, discussing the benefits of utilizing PAM in addition to visual 

monitoring. Comments also recommended the development of an adaptive management process to 

evaluate mitigation measures and new technologies and develop a long-term monitoring plan of 

mitigation measures.

Two commenters indicated that proposed mitigation measures for HRG devices were impracticable, 

scientifically unjustified, and burdensome, specifically related to the marine minerals program. The 

commenters requested exemptions from mitigation measures for HRG activities specific to the marine 

minerals program. The requested exemptions included exclusion from the time-area closures, an 

automatic exemption for specific HRG devices that would eliminate the application process, and 

exemptions from utilizing PSOs. Comments were also received opposing the application of shutdown 

procedures when dolphins are present because of displayed behaviors where the animals pursue instead of 

avoid vessels or sound sources. 

5.6.2.2. General Response to Comments

Additional sound source verification studies have been conducted since the release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM has reviewed the results of recent field verification studies of sound sources 

including depth sounder, boomer, subbottom profiler, and multi-beam sonar (Martin et al., 2012). The 

Martin et al. (2012) field study demonstrated that SPLs for the devices tested did not exceed 

175 dB re 1 μPa for any source, and that the isopleth of 160 dB (SPL) was 12 m (39 ft) or less. Received 

SPLs did not reach Level A (180 dB) and the zone of ensonification for Level B (160 dB) was very close 
Consultation and Coordination 5-11

to the sound source, suggesting the potential for either a Level A or Level B impact from these devices 

was unlikely.

A field verification study of electromechanical sound sources, funded by BOEM, was conducted in 

2012 and examined sound emissions from a subbottom profiler (Zykov and MacDonnell, 2013). This 

study measured sound emissions of a subbottom profiler in both a shallow and deeper water location and 

compared the field results with modeling results of the modeling conducted specifically for the 

preparation of the Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas Draft Programmatic EIS. Zykov and MacDonnell (2013) demonstrated for the 

locations where the field verification was conducted that the received levels and/or threshold radii were 

significantly less than the finding reported in Appendix D. For 180 dB re 1 μPa and 160 dB re 1 μPa, the 

threshold radii were measured at 2 and 29 m (6.5 and 95 ft), respectively. The 29 m (95 ft) measured 

radii for 160 dB re 1 μPa is approximately 70 percent of the modeled radii or a 30 percent reduction of the 

radii modeled. BOEM has applied this new information to clarify mitigation measures proposed for some 

specific non-airgun HRG acoustic sources.

BOEM has made a number of changes to the Final Programmatic EIS as a result of public comments. 

These changes have largely been in the related areas of affected resources and mitigation measures. A 

primary focus area for revision in the Final Programmatic EIS has been the Seismic Airgun and HRG

Survey Protocols, described in Chapter 2 and Appendix C. Adjustments to the Survey Protocols include 

revised vessel strike avoidance guidelines; addition of DMAs to the time-area closures for the NARW; 

exclusion of seismic airguns within NARW critical habitat, U.S. SMAs, or DMAs between November 1 

and April 30 (HRG surveys for sources operating at or below 30 kHz would be allowed within NARW

critical habitat during this period); clarification to the exception for delphinid shutdown in instances when 

delphinids approach survey vessel or equipment; and, application of a buffer zone for surveys authorized 

outside of critical habitat, U.S. SMAs, and DMAs.

BOEM has also revised other areas of the document including alternatives analysis, affected 

environment, and consultation. Table 5-1 contains a summary of the major changes made as a result of 

comments received during the public comment period.

The implementation of mitigation measures that are now part of the Preferred Alternative, as well as 

future site-specific environmental analysis and environmental documentation that will be conducted to 

identify and address resources in specific project areas, will help ensure that operational activities are 

conducted in an environmentally sound manner and that impacts to resources are minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable. Many of the mitigation measures included in the Preferred Alternative are 

standard mitigation measures that have been developed and utilized with success in other OCS areas.

5.6.3. Distribution of the Final Programmatic EIS

BOEM provided copies of the Final Programmatic EIS to the following public and private agencies 

and groups, and Indian Tribes. Local libraries in the seven states adjacent to the AOI, also listed below,

were provided copies of the document.

Federal Agencies

Congress

Congressional Budget Office

House Resources Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources

Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources

Department of Commerce

National Marine Fisheries Service

Silver Spring, Maryland

St. Petersburg, Florida

Miami, Florida

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Silver Spring, Maryland

National Ocean Service

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary

Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

Wallops Flight Facility

Department of Defense

Department of the Air Force

Department of the Army

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers

Department of the Navy

Office of Naval Research
5-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Department of Energy

Strategic Petroleum Reserve PMD

Department of Homeland Security

Coast Guard

Department of State

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

OCS Regions, Office of 

Environment 

Headquarters, Environmental 

Division

Headquarters, Resource Evaluation

Division

Fish and Wildlife Service

Jacksonville, Florida

Washington, DC

Geological Survey

National Park Service

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance

Office of the Solicitor

Department of Transportation

Office of Pipeline Safety

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 3

Region 4

Marine Mammal Commission

State and Local Agencies

Delaware

Governor’s Office

Coastal Management Program

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control

Division of Fish and Wildlife

Florida

Governor’s Office

Bureau of Archaeological Research

Department of Community Affairs

Department of Environmental Protection

St. Johns County Board of 

Commissioners

Georgia

Governor’s Office

Department of Natural Resources

Maryland

Governor’s Office

Department of Natural Resources

New Jersey

Governor’s Office

Division of Fish and Wildlife 

North Carolina

Governor’s Office

Coastal Resources Commission

Department of Environmental and 

Natural Resources

South Carolina

Governor’s Office

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control-Office of 

Ocean and Resource Management

Virginia

Governor’s Office

City of Norfolk

Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Mines, Minerals, and 

Energy

Marine Resources Commission

Other Governing Agencies

New England Fishery Management Council

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Industry

American Petroleum Institute

American Exploration and Production 

Council

BP Offshore Exploration and Production 

Operations

Chevron U.S.A.

CGG Veritas

CPE-Coastal Planning and Engineering

Coastal Technology Corporation

Ecology & Environment Inc.

ExxonMobil Corporation

Florida Petroleum Council

Fugro

Geo-Marine, Inc.

Georgia Petroleum Council

Halliburton Energy Services

Independent Petroleum Association of 

America

International Association of Geophysical 

Contractors 

International Association of Drilling 

Contractors 

ION GX Technology

Natural Gas Supply Association

National Ocean Industry Association

New Jersey Petroleum Council

North Carolina Petroleum Council
Consultation and Coordination 5-13

PBS&J

Piedmont Natural Gas Company

Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association

Schlumberger-Western Geco

Shell Exploration

Shell Exploration and Production Company

Shell North Atlantic Exploration Group

South Carolina Petroleum Council

Southeast Energy Alliance

Taylor Engineering, Inc.

TetraTech

TGS-Nopec Geophysical 

U.S. Oil and Gas Association

Virginia Offshore Wind Coalition

Virginia Petroleum Council

Western Geco

Special Interest Groups and 

Non-Government Organizations

American Littoral Society

Americans for Prosperity

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission

Cape Fear River Watch

Center for a Sustainable Coast

Center for Biological Diversity

Center for Water Advocacy

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Chesapeake Bay Group

Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries 

Association

Citizens for Sound Conservation

Clean Ocean Action

Coastal Conservation League

Consumer Energy Alliance

Defenders of Wildlife

Duval Audubon Society

Earthjustice

Eastern Shore Defense Alliance

Environment New Jersey

Environment North Carolina

Friends of South Shore Fisheries

Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce

Kiawah Conservancy

Legacy Offshore

Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership

Natural Resources Defense Council

New Jersey Sierra Club

North Carolina Coastal Federation

Ocean Conservation Research

Oceana

Pender Watch and Conservancy

Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance

Save the Manatee Club

Sierra Club

Southern Environmental Law Center

Surfrider Foundation

The Humane Society of the United States

The Nature Conservancy

Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

Women’s International League for Peace 

and Freedom

Ports/Docks

Canaveral Port Authority

Georgia Ports Authority

Jacksonville Port Authority

North Carolina State Ports Authority

Port of Virginia

South Carolina Ports Authority

Academic Institutions

Duke University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

University of California, Berkeley 

University of Georgia

University of Delaware 

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Tribes and Tribal Nations

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

Aroostook Band of Micmacs

Catawba Indian Nation

Cayuga Nation

Cherokee Nation

Delaware Tribe of Indians

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

Miccosukee Tribe

Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut

Narragansett Indian Tribe

Oneida Indian Nation

Onondaga Nation

Passamaquoddy Tribe – Indian Township

Passamaquoddy Tribe – Pleasant Point

Penobscot Nation

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
5-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Seminole Tribe of Florida

Seneca Nation of New York

Shinnecock Indian Nation

Stockbridge-Munsee Community of 

Mohican Indians

Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians

Tuscarora Nation

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians in Oklahoma

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head-Aquinnah

Libraries

Repository libraries for Government 

documents will be provided a copy of the Final

Programmatic EIS if the document is in accord 

with the library’s selection criteria for items 

received from the U.S. Government Printing 

Office.

5.7. CONSULTATIONS

As a programmatic document, this EIS provides extensive information about resources and impacts 

within the AOI as well as comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis. This Programmatic EIS also 

establishes a framework for subsequent environmental documents for site-specific actions. Because there 

are important aspects of a particular G&G survey project that a programmatic evaluation cannot provide,

operators proposing future site-specific actions will be required to follow the stipulations and procedures 

of the following Acts to ensure compliance with each Act and receipt of a permit or approval. An 

operator will need to show compliance with each Act, as necessary, before BOEM will issue its permit or 

authorization. While Section 7 consultation under ESA has occurred on a programmatic basis, it too may 

need to be addressed on a site-specific basis if the scope of a particular action falls outside the coverage of 

the programmatic consultation.

5.7.1. Coastal Zone Management Act

The CZMA (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.) was enacted by Congress to protect the coastal environment 

from increasing demands associated with commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential uses, 

including State and Federal offshore energy development. Provisions in the CZMA help the States 

develop CMPs to manage and balance competing uses of the coastal zone. All of the Atlantic States have 

approved CMPs (see Appendix B for more information). Requirements for the coastal zone management

consistency information are based on the approval of listed activities according to NOAA’s Office of 

Coastal and Resource Management. If the activity is unlisted, the State must go through the process of 

the Office of Coastal and Resource Management approving a State’s unlisted activity request on a 

case-by-case basis (15 CFR § 930.54). Federal agencies must follow the Federal consistency provisions 

delineated in 15 CFR part 930).

There are several standards of “Federal consistency.” Federal agency activities must be “consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable” with relevant enforceable policies of a State’s federally approved CMP 

(15 CFR part 930 subpart C) (e.g., OCS lease sales, renewable energy competitive lease sales, and marine 

minerals negotiated competitive agreements). Private activities that require a Federal permit or license 

must be “consistent” with enforceable policies (15 CFR part 930 subpart D) (e.g., G&G permits, 

renewable energy non-competitive authorized activities, and negotiated non-competitive marine minerals 

agreement). The OCS plan activities must be “consistent” with enforceable policies (15 CFR part 930

subpart E) (e.g., exploration, development, and production activities, and renewable energy competitive 

plan). Many G&G ancillary seismic activities under 30 CFR part 550 require the preparation of an OCS 

plan that would be reviewed pursuant to 15 CFR part 930 subpart E. See the “Frequently Asked 

Questions for Ancillary Activities” document (USDOI, BOEM, 2011g) for a list of activities that require 

the preparation of an OCS plan. If an activity will have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on coastal 

uses or resources, the activity is subject to Federal consistency.

For oil and gas related activities, a G&G permit must be obtained from BOEM prior to conducting 

off-lease geological or geophysical exploration or scientific research on unleased OCS lands or on lands 

under lease to a third party (30 CFR §§ 551.4 (a) and (b)). Geological investigations include various 

seafloor sampling techniques to determine the geochemical, geotechnical, or engineering properties of the 

sediments. The G&G activities conducted by another Federal agency are not subject to BOEM 

authorization but may still require consistency review. Under the EPAct of 2005, BOEM does not have 
Consultation and Coordination 5-15

authority to regulate survey activities conducted off-lease and there is no requirement for a G&G 

authorization to be obtained from BOEM for conducting renewable energy survey activities.

Ancillary activities are defined in 30 CFR § 550.105 with regulations outlined in 30 CFR §§ 550.207 

through 550.210. Ancillary activities are activities conducted on-lease and include G&G exploration and 

development G&G activities; geological and high-resolution geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, 

biological, physical oceanographic, meteorological, socioeconomic, or other surveys; or various types of 

modeling studies. This Agency issued NTL 2009-G34, “Ancillary Activities,” to provide updated 

guidance and clarification on conducting ancillary activities in BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 

While there is not an NTL in place regarding Ancillary Activities, for the Atlantic Region it is suggested 

that the operator review NTL 2009-G34 as a method of general guidance for the permitted activity 

process.

In order to receive a permit or authorization from BOEM in any of the three program areas, an 

applicant must demonstrate that the proposed survey is consistent with the enforceable policies of the 

State’s CMP. If BOEM receives a written consistency objection from the State, BOEM will not approve 

any activity unless (1) the operator amends the application to accommodate the objection and concurrence 

is subsequently received or conclusively presumed; (2) upon appeal, the Secretary of Commerce, in 

accordance with 15 CFR part 930 subpart H, finds that the application is consistent with the objectives or 

purposes of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security; or (3) the original objection is 

declared invalid by the courts.

This Programmatic EIS does not authorize lease sales or G&G activities, approve OCS plans, or issue 

any permits or authorizations, and therefore a coastal zone management consistency determination and

consistency certification is not required for this programmatic analysis. For CZMA purposes, this 

Programmatic EIS provides the framework for subsequent environmental documents; no consultation 

takes place at this stage, but will occur, as necessary, for future site-specific actions.

5.7.2. Endangered Species Act

BOEM sent a letter to FWS on June 11, 2012, requesting consultation as required by the ESA. On 

August 7, 2012, FWS sent a response in concurrence that the proposed G&G exploration activities would 

have no effect on, or would not be likely to adversely affect, the federally listed species or designated 

critical habitats as determined in BOEM’s consultation request. This concurrence would need to be 

reconsidered if new information reveals the action may affect listed species or critical habitats in a 

manner or to an extent not considered in the current determination; the action is later modified in a 

manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in the informal 

consultation; or a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by this action.

On June 9, 2013, BOEM sent an email to FWS providing clarifying language and the determination 

the change would not impact any protected species under FWS jurisdiction. FWS responded by saying if 

BOEM feels the Atlantic G&G activities could affect federally listed species or designated critical 

habitats in a way that was not previously considered to contact FWS for reinitiation. BOEM determined 

that the clarifying language did not rise to the level of requiring reinitiation.

BOEM sent a letter to NMFS on May 24, 2012, requesting formal consultation as required by the 

ESA. Enclosed with the request was the BA, which incorporated NMFS’s December 16, 2011, responses 

to comments on a shared Draft BA. On August 6, 2012, NMFS initiated consultation with BOEM on the 

proposed action and indicated they expected to deliver their BO no later than October 11, 2012. On 

October 5, 2012, NMFS requested a 4-week extension, allowing them until November 8, 2012, to 

complete their BO. NMFS requested another extension on November 26, 2012.

After the late November request for an additional extension, NMFS projected to deliver the Draft BO 

first in late December and then in January. The Draft BO was delivered to BOEM on February 12, 2013. 

Following BOEM review of the Draft BO, BOEM submitted edits and clarifying language to NMFS on 

March 8, 2013. BOEM provided clarifying language for the Draft BO in regards to HRG Survey Protocol 

within NARW critical habitat, U.S. SMAs, and DMAs. BOEM and NMFS held a conference call on 

March 13 and again on March 25, 2013, to discuss edits and clarifying language. On April 15, 2013, 

BOEM sent additional information regarding the clarifying language to NMFS. On April 30, 2013, 

NMFS provided BOEM a revised Draft BO for review. On May 9, 2013, BOEM provided edits back to 

NMFS on the revised Draft BO. On May 24, 2013, NMFS issued a Final BO. BOEM requested NMFS 

to reissue the Final BO to include BOEM edits provided on May 9, 2013. On July 19, 2013, NMFS 
5-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

issued a corrected Final BO. NMFS concluded in the BO that the proposed action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the species under consultation (Appendix A). NMFS also 

concluded the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify NARW critical habitat

(Appendix A). 

Reinitiation of consultation with NMFS may be required for a number of reasons, including: (1) the 

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action 

that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the BO; (3)

the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or 

critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated 

that may be affected by the action (Appendix M). 

BOEM will need to ensure the requirements of ESA are met at the site-specific level, either by falling 

under the umbrella of the Section 7 consultation completed for this Programmatic EIS or by completion 

of site-specific consultation for authorizations of proposed survey.

5.7.3. Marine Mammal Protection Act

 To comply with the MMPA, BOEM issued approval for G&G activities, will require the operator to 

obtain MMPA authorization (LOA or IHA), if necessary, from NMFS and/or FWS. BOEM cannot 

proceed with the processing of an authorization for G&G activities until a NEPA analysis is complete and 

the applicant/operator has secured all necessary approvals including an LOA or IHA from NMFS and/or 

FWS. Information on how to apply for an MMPA authorization can be found at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Additional mitigation measures can be applied by 

NMFS and/or FWS and are not limited to the mitigation measures identified for the alternatives framed 

for this Programmatic EIS, or to how mitigation measures are defined in it. This document shall serve as 

a reference for environmental documentation regarding future site-specific actions. Because incidental 

take under the ESA is only issued for ESA-listed marine mammals once the requirements of Section 

101(a)(5) of the MMPA have been met, surveys that could affect ESA-listed marine mammals shall not 

commence until such time that FWS and/or NMFS have issued the appropriate MMPA ITA and its 

requirements have been coordinated with those in any existing or new ESA ITS.

5.7.4. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

On April 12, 2012, BOEM requested programmatic EFH consultation for the Atlantic OCS G&G

activities as proposed in the Draft Programmatic EIS (dated March 2012).

On June 1, 2012, NMFS determined BOEM’s request for programmatic EFH consultation was not an 

appropriate mechanism to evaluate EFH impacts of BOEM G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS based on 

information available at the time. NMFS recognizes the expanse of ocean that might be surveyed is 

considerable; however, the number of proposed individual G&G activities requiring BOEM authorization 

does not appear to be extensive, particularly in the near term. NMFS’s review of the EFH Assessment 

and supporting Draft Programmatic EIS, in combination with NMFS review of proposed OCS G&G 

activities and impacts, was the basis for their determination that EFH consultation will not occur at the 

programmatic level for G&G activities on the Atlantic OCS. 

In response to NMFS EFH determination, BOEM has proposed each activity that occurs under this 

proposed action would receive an environmental review including an EFH assessment from BOEM. That 

is, BOEM will review the proposed site-specific survey activity and ask the lessee/permittee for any 

additional information deemed necessary to analyze impacts of the specific activity within specified 

locations or areas on marine protected species, archaeological resources, biological features, and EFH. 

During that review, BOEM would draft a site-specific environmental analysis or other appropriate NEPA

document with the EFH assessment as an appendix. On the basis of the NEPA and the EFH assessment, 

BOEM would then make the determination whether or not proposed specific activities would cause a 

significant adverse effect on fisheries and EFH to warrant a formal EFH consultation. If determined there 

would be an adverse effect to fisheries and EFH, BOEM would develop and assign mitigations during the 

NEPA evaluation, complete an EFH assessment with the appropriate mitigation measures, and submit the 

EFH to NMFS for review, which would initiate a formal consultation. After a review of the permit and 

the EFH Assessment, NMFS would give their conservation recommendations. BOEM will then respond 

to those recommendations and active coordination between BOEM and NMFS will continue.
Consultation and Coordination 5-17

5.7.5. National Historic Preservation Act

In accordance with the NHPA (16 U.S.C. § 470), Federal agencies are required to consider the effects 

of their undertakings on historic properties. The implementing regulations for Section 106 of the NHPA 

(16 U.S.C. § 470(f)), issued by the ACHP (36 CFR part 800), specify the required review process. If the 

proposed G&G work involves bottom-disturbing activity, BOEM will initiate the Section 106 process. 

As part of the Section 106 process, BOEM will involve consulting parties, which will include the ACHP, 

THPOs and other tribal representatives, SHPOs, and the public. Through consultation, BOEM will 

determine the area of potential effects and the level of archaeological survey that constitutes a reasonable 

and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification of historic properties.

At a minimum, BOEM will require a historic property identification survey. Upon examination of the 

reports and data specified by these surveys and in consultation with parties identified through the 

Section 106 process, BOEM will determine if there are indications of historic properties (prehistoric or 

historic archaeological resources) within the area of potential effects that may be affected by the proposed 

actions. BOEM, in consultation with the ACHP, SHPO, THPO or other tribal representatives, and other 

consulting parties, has authority under Section 106 of the NHPA to develop and evaluate alternatives or 

modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to these potential 

historic properties. Avoidance buffers from suspected resources or requests for further examination by an 

applicant could result from the NHPA and NEPA evaluation as mitigation. 

Because of the broad scope of the possible activities discussed in this Programmatic EIS, and the lack 

of a specific Federal undertaking at this time on which to consult, separate Section 106 consultations will 

be conducted by the regions and program offices managing specific undertakings as they arise. The 

activities discussed span three program areas: oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals. While 

certain of the analyzed activities are common for all three program areas, others are limited to a specific 

program area. Furthermore, while the Programmatic EIS discusses a range of proposed undertakings with 

a range of potential effects, BOEM will not know the exact nature of an undertaking until it is proposed 

and evaluated by the bureau. For these reasons, it is appropriate that specific Section 106 consultations 

will be initiated for proposed undertakings prior to BOEM approving any activities. 

In cases where existing agreements and relationships were established to guide Section 106 

consultations, those agreements will be observed. The Office of Renewable Energy Programs has already 

initiated and held Section 106 consultations with several states, local entities, and Indian tribal 

governments under its renewable energy program area for the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Rhode 

Island and Massachusetts WEAs. BOEM currently has three Regional Section 106 Programmatic 

Agreements in place that cover elements of the G&G undertakings discussed in the Programmatic EIS 

with respect to WEAs offshore Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey; Georgia, South Carolina, 

and Florida; and Rhode Island and Massachusetts. For specific undertakings proposed that fall within the 

scope of these Agreements, consultation will follow the appropriate stipulations. For the Marine Minerals 

Program, due to the nature of the undertakings involving multiple agencies across Federal and State 

jurisdictions, the COE may act as the lead Federal agency for Section 106 purposes related to the use of 

offshore sand borrow areas on BOEM’s behalf In this way, both agencies will fulfill their collective 

responsibilities under Section 106.

5.7.6. National Marine Sanctuaries Act

Section 304(d) of the NMSA requires that Federal agencies consult with NOAA’S ONMS for any 

Federal action internal or external to an NMS that is “likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a 

sanctuary resource.” Table 5-2 identifies the locations within this document for critical elements of an 

NMSA assessment. If the proposed G&G work involves bottom-disturbing activity in proximity to an 

NMS, archaeological and shallow hazard surveys would be required to examine bottom conditions as part 

of the NEPA evaluation. Further, if a geophysical survey vessel(s) operates in proximity to an NMS, then 

BOEM will consult with ONMS to determine whether any additional mitigation (i.e., setbacks from NMS 

boundaries) needs to be applied to further protect NMS resources. BOEM is committed to continued 

coordination with ONMS and will continue to impose mitigating measures and monitoring and reporting 

requirements to help ensure that NMSs and their resources are protected.

On July 16, 2012, ONMS requested future coordination with BOEM to discuss their request for 

notification requirements to divers and boaters beyond the Notice to Mariners and additional protective 
5-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

stipulations for the Monitor and Gray’s Reef NMSs. On November 2, 2012, BOEM initiated further 

consultation with ONMS to discuss further ideas for notifying boaters and mariners as well as developing 

appropriate stipulations to protect NMSs and their resources. BOEM is committed to continued 

coordination with ONMS and will continue to impose mitigating measures and monitoring and reporting 

requirements to help ensure that NMSs and their resources are protected.

On May 20 and October 22, 2013, ONMS and BOEM held meetings to discuss coordination between 

the agencies for G&G permit and authorization review and the process for incorporating conditions of 

approval if proposed activities occur with or adjacent to NMSs. Coordination with ONMS will occur on 

an individual permit/authorization basis. Specific mitigation measures and/or best management practices 

will be incorporated at the site-specific review and approval stages.

5.7.7. Department of Defense/National Aeronautics and Space Administration

During the revision of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the DoD notified BOEM that within the 

boundaries of the AOI there are ongoing DoD operations and missions. 

The general guidance for military and NASA coordination has resulted in establishing two working 

groups to help ensure that G&G activities are coordinated with the DoD as site-specific G&G activities 

are proposed. The two working groups have been formed to provide a structured process by which DoD 

and BOEM can develop measures to minimize conflicts between USDOI G&G surveys and DoD 

operations. The first group, the Interagency Working Group on South and Mid-Atlantic OCS Planning 

Areas Spatial Conflict Minimization (IWG-SCM), was created to address spatial conflicts of proposed 

BOEM seismic and related G&G permitting/authorization activities with DoD operations in the mid- and 

south Atlantic. The second group, the Interagency Working Group on Passive Acoustic Monitoring in 

U.S. Atlantic OCS Waters (IWG-PAM), was created to develop coordination and reporting requirements 

associated with the use and requirements of PAM systems in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas 

for oil, gas, and renewable energy surveys and in the North Atlantic Planning Area for renewable energy 

surveys.

5.7.8. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments and recognizes 

Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under its protection. As domestic dependent nations, Indian 

tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States works with 

Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal 

self-government, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights. Furthermore, the United 

States recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and 

self-determination. BOEM respects Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty, honors tribal treaty 

and other rights, and strives to meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship 

between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments.

BOEM has already begun outreach and coordination with potentially affected federally recognized 

tribes. Initially, the Draft Programmatic EIS was sent to many federally recognized tribes in the Atlantic 

Region. BOEM followed up with an outreach letter to potentially affected tribes in December 2013 that 

described G&G activities and sought tribal interest in consulting at the site-specific level. Where a tribe 

expresses interest, BOEM intends to conduct formal government-to-government consultation at the 

site-specific level where both BOEM and interested tribes will know the exact nature of an action. 

Finally, BOEM has already initiated and held consultations with Indian tribal governments under its 

renewable energy program area for the Mid-Atlantic, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts WEAs.
CHAPTER 6 

 

REFERENCES CITED

References Cited 6-3

6. REFERENCES CITED

Acevedo, A. 1991. Interactions between boats and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the 

entrance to Ensendad de la Paz, Mexico. Aquatic Mammals 17(3):120-124.

Adams, J.A. 1960. A contribution to the biology and postlarval development of the sargassumfish, 

Histrio histrio (Linnaeus), with a discussion of the Sargassum complex. Bulletin of Marine Science 

of the Gulf and Caribbean 10(1):55-82.

Al-Faraj, M. 2007. Workshop confirms promise of passive seismic for reservoir imaging and 

monitoring. First Break 25(7).

Ali, M.Y., K.A. Berteussen, J. Small, and B. Barkat. 2007. A low frequency, passive seismic experiment 

over a carbonate reservoir in Abu Dhabi. First Break 25:71–73

Aller, J.Y., R.C. Aller, and M.A. Green. 2002. Benthic faunal assemblages and carbon supply along the 

continental shelf/shelf break-slope off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Deep Sea Research II 

49:4599-4625.

American Petroleum Institute. 1999. Fate of spilled oil in marine waters: Where does it go? What does 

it do? How do dispersants affect it? API Publication No. 4691. 57 pp.

André, M., M. Solé, M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, C. Quero, A. Mas, A. Lombarte, M. van der Schaar, 

M. López-Bejar, M. Morell, S. Zaugg, and L. Houégnigan. 2011. Low-frequency sounds induce 

acoustic trauma in cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:489–493.

Archer, F.I. 2002. Striped dolphin. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 1201-1203.

Askeland, B., H. Hobæk, and R. Mjelde. 2007. Marine seismics with a pulsed combustion source and 

Pseudo Noise codes. Marine Geophysical Research 28:109-117. Internet website: https://

bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2215/4/mgr%20article%20askeland.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Askeland, B., H. Hobæk, and R. Mjelde. 2008. Semiperiodic chirp sequences reduce autocorrelation side 

lobes of pulsed signals. Marine Geophysical Research 73(3):Q19-Q27. 

Askeland, B., B.O. Ruud, H. Hobæk, and R. Mjelde. 2009. A seismic field test with a Low-level 

Acoustic Combustion Source and Pseudo-Noise codes. Journal of Applied Geophysics 67:66-73.

Atkinson, L.P. and T.E. Targett. 1983. Upwelling along the 60-m isobath from Cape Canaveral to Cape 

Hatteras and its relationship to fish distribution. Deep-Sea Research Part A, Oceanographic Research 

Papers 30(2):221-6.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2012. ASMFC river herring benchmark assessment 

indicates stock is depleted. News release, May 4, 2012.

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, 

February 23, 2007. 174 pp. Updated with corrections July 27, 2007. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Atlantic Wind Connection. 2011a. Internet website: http://atlanticwindconnection.com/. Accessed 

August 18, 2011.

Atlantic Wind Connection. 2011b. Right of way application – FAQs. Internet website: http://

www.atlanticwindconnection.com/ferc/BOEM/ROW%20application%20FAQs.pdf. Accessed 

September 2, 2011. 

Au, W.W.L. 1993. The sonar of dolphins. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 277 pp.

Au, W.L. and M.C. Hastings. 2008. Hearing in marine animals. In: Principles of marine bioacoustics. 

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 337-400.
6-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Au, W.W.L. and W. Perryman. 1982. Movement and speed of dolphin schools responding to an 

approaching ship. Fishery Bulletin 80(2):371-379.

Au, W.W.L., R.W. Floyd, R.H. Penner, and A.E. Murchison. 1974. Measurement of echolocation 

signals of the Atlantic spotted dolphin, Tursiops truncatus Montagu, in open waters. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 56(4):1280-1290.

Au, W.W.L., D.A. Carder, R.H. Penner, and B.L. Scronce. 1985. Demonstration of adaptation in beluga 

whale echolocation signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77(2):726-730.

Au, W.W. L., P.E. Nachtigall, and J.L. Pawloski. 1997. Acoustic effects of the ATOC signal (75 Hz, 

195 dB) on dolphins and whales. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

101(5, Pt. 1):2973-2977.

Auster, P.J., J. Lindholm, S. Schaub, G. Funnell, L.S. Kaufman, and P.C. Valentine. 2003. Use of sand 

wave habitats by silver hake. Journal of Fish Biology 62(1):143-52.

Awbrey, F.T., J.F. Thomas, and R.A. Kastelein. 1988. Low-frequency underwater hearing sensitivity in 

belugas, Delphinapterus leucas. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84:2273–2275.

Ayers, R.R., W.T. Jones, and D. Hannay. 2009. Methods to reduce lateral noise propagation from 

seismic exploration vessels. Report by Stress Engineering Services, Inc. for the U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service. April 2009. Internet website: http://www.bsee.gov/

Research-and-Training/Technology-Assessment-and-Research/tarprojects/600-699/608AA.aspx. 

Accessed September 28, 2011.

Ayers, R.R., W.T. Jones, and D. Hannay. 2010. Methods to reduce lateral noise propagation from 

seismic exploration vessels. Part 2: 3D acoustic analysis including attenuation of the effectiveness of 

the bubble curtain concept. Report by Stress Engineering Services, Inc. for the U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service. July 2010. Internet website: http://www.bsee.gov/

Research-and-Training/Technology-Assessment-and-Research/tarprojects/600-699/608AB.aspx. 

Accessed September 28, 2011.

Backus, R.H. 1987. Mesopelagic fishes. In: Milliman, J.D. and W.R. Wright, eds. The marine 

environment of the U.S. Atlantic continental slope and rise. Boston/Woods Hole, MA: Jones and 

Bartlett Publ., Inc. Pp. 177-181.

Backus, R.H., J.E. Craddock, R.L. Haedrich, and B.H. Robison. 1977. Atlantic mesopelagic 

zoogeography. In: Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Mem. Sears Found. Mar. Res. 1:266-287.

Bain, D.E. 1995. The use of sound to guide killer whales (Orcinus orca) entrapped in Barnes Lake, 

Alaska, to open water. Poster presented at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Conference.

Bain, D.E. 2002. Acoustical properties of pingers and the San Juan Island commercial gillnet fishery. 

NMFS Contract Report No. 40ABNF701651. 14 pp.

Bain, D.E. and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Effects of masking noise on detection thresholds of killer whales. 

In: Loughlin, T.R., ed. Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Pp. 243-256. 

Bain, D.E., B. Kriete, and M.E. Dahlheim. 1993. Hearing abilities of killer whales (Orcinus orca). 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94(Pt. 2):1828.

Baird, R. 2002. False killer whale. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 411-412. 

Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, in Canada. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 

115:663-675.

Baird, R.W. and P.J. Stacey. 1990. Status of Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus, in Canada. The 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 105:233-242.

Baird, R.W., S.K. Hooker, H. Whitehead, and R. Etcheberry. 1997. A review of records of striped 

dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) from Canadian waters. IWC Doc. SC/49/SM4. 10 pp.
References Cited 6-5

Baker, K., D. Epperson, G. Gitschlag, H. Goldstein, J. Lewandowski, K. Skrupky, B. Smith, and T. Turk. 

2013. National standards for protected species observers and data management: A model for seismic 

survey activities. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/publications/techmemo/observers_nmfsopr49.pdf. Accessed 

December 23, 2013. 

Barans, C.A. and V.J. Henry, Jr. 1984. A description of the shelf edge groundfish habitat along the 

southeastern United States. Northeast Gulf Science 7(1):77-96.

Barber, J.R., K.R. Crooks, and K.M. Fristrup. 2010. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial 

organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:180-189.

Barco, S.G., W.A. McLellan, J.M. Allen, R.A. Asmutis-Silvia, R. Mallon-Day, E.M. Meagher, 

D.A. Pabst, J. Robbins, R.E. Seton, W.M. Swingle, M.T. Weinrich, and P.J. Clapham. 2002. 

Population identity of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the waters of the U.S.

mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4(2):135-141.

Barlow, J. and G.A. Cameron. 2003. Field experiments show that acoustic pingers reduce marine 

mammal bycatch in the California drift gillnet fishery. Marine Mammal Science 19(2):265-283.

Barlow, J. and B.L. Taylor. 2005. Estimates of sperm whale abundance in the northeastern temperate

Pacific from a combined acoustic and visual survey. Marine Mammal Science 21:429-445.

Barnes, D.K.A., F. Galgani, R.C. Thompson, and M. Barlaz. 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of 

plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364:1985-1998.

Barnette, M.C. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their 

potential impacts on essential fish habitat. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-449. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, South St. Petersburg, FL. 62 pp.

Bartol, S.M. and D.R. Ketten. 2006. Turtle and tuna hearing. In: Swimmer, Y. and R. Brill, eds. Sea 

turtle and pelagic fish sensory biology: Developing techniques to reduce sea turtle bycatch in 

longline fisheries. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-PIFSC-7. Pp. 98-105. Internet website: http://

www.pifsc.noaa.gov/tech/NOAA_Tech_Memo_PIFSC_7.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Bartol, S.M., J.A. Musick, and M. Lenhardt. 1999. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea 

turtle (Caretta caretta). Copeia 3:836-840.

Bascom, W. 1971. Deep-water archaeology. Science 174(4006):261-269.

Baumgartner, M.F. and B.R. Mate. 2005. Summer and fall habitat of North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) inferred from satellite telemetry. Candian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 62:527-543.

Beggs, J.A., J.A. Horrocks, and B.H. Krueger. 2007. Increase in hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys 

imbricata nesting in Barbados, West Indies. Endangered Species Research 3:159-168. Internet 

website: http://www.widecast.org/What/Country/Barbados/Docs/Beggs_et_al_%282007%29_EI_

rising_in_Barbados.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead, H. Finn, and S. Allen. 2009. Impact assessment research: Use 

and misuse of habituation, sensitisation and tolerance in describing wildlife responses to 

anthropogenic stimuli. Marine Ecology Progress Series 395:177-185. Internet website: 

http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m395p177.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2011.

Bell, I.P. and C.J. Parmenter. 2008. The diving behavior of inter-nesting hawksbill turtles, 

Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus 1766), on Milman Island reef, Queensland, Australia. 

Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):254-263. Internet website: http://

www.herpconbio.org/Volume_3/Issue_2/Bell_Parmenter_2008.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Bengtson, J.L. and S.M. Fitzgerald. 1985. Potential role of vocalizations in West Indian manatees. 

J. Mammal. 66:816-819.
6-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Bensen, G.D., M.H. Ritzwoller, M.P. Barmin, A.L. Levshin, F. Lin, M.P. Moschetti, N.M. Shapio, and 

Y. Yang. 2007. Processing seismic ambient noise data to obtain reliable broad-band surface wave 

dispersion measurements. Geophys. J. Int. 169:1239-1260.

Bensen, G.D., M.H. Ritzwoller, and N.M Shapiro. 2008. Broad-band ambient noise surface wave 

tomography across the United States. J. Geophys. Res. 113:B05306.

Berman, B.D. 1973. Encyclopedia of American shipwrecks. Boston, MA: The Mariner’s Press.

Berrien, P.L., M.P. Fahay, A.W. Kendall, and W.G. Smith. 1978. Ichthyoplankton from the 

RV DOLPHIN survey of continental shelf waters between Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts and 

Cape Lookout, North Carolina, 1965-66. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Sandy Hook, NJ. Tech. Ser. 

Rep. No. 15. 152 pp.

Bigg, M.A. 1981. Harbour seal - Phoca vitulina and P. largha. In: Ridgway, S.H. and R.J. Harrison, 

eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Volume 2 (Seals). Academic Press. Pp. 1-28.

Birchwood, R., S. Noeth, and E. Jones. 2008. Safe drilling in gas-hydrate prone sediments: Findings 

from the 2005 drilling campaign of the Gulf of Mexico gas hydrates Joint Industry Project (JIP). U.S. 

Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice. Methane Hydrate 

Newsletter. Winter 2008 8(1):1-8. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/

publications/Hydrates/Newsletter/HMNewsWinter08.pdf#page=1. Accessed August 26, 2011.

Bird, J. 2003. The marine vibrator. The Leading Edge 22:368-370.

Birkelo, B., M. Duclos, B. Artman, B. Schechinger, B. Witten, A. Goertz, K. Weemstra, and M.T. Hadidi. 

2010. A passive low-frequency seismic survey in Abu Dhabi – Shaheen project. SEG Expanded 

Abstracts 29:2207-2211.

Bjørge Naxys AS. 2010. LACS (patented) low-frequency acoustic source.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. 

The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 199-231.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1999. Conservation of hawksbill sea turtles: Perceptions and realities. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 3(2):174-176. Internet website: http://www.turtles.org/bjorndal.htm. Last 

updated October 31, 1999. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Bjorndal, K.A and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, on 

feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 3:555-564. 

Bjorndal, K.A. and A.B. Bolten. 2010. Hawksbill sea turtles in seagrass pastures: Success in a 

peripheral habitat. Marine Biology 157:135-145. Internet website: http://accstr.ufl.edu/accstrresources/publications/Bjorndal_&_Bolten_MarBiol_2010.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and M.Y. Chaloupka. 2003. Survival probability estimates for immature 

green turtles Chelonia mydas in the Bahamas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 252:273–281. 

Internet website: http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2003/252/m252p273.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Black, A. 2005. Light induced seabird mortality on vessels operating in the Southern Ocean: Incidents 

and mitigation measures. Antarctic Science 17:67-68.

Blake, J.A. and J.F. Grassle. 1994. Benthic community structure on the U.S. South Atlantic slope off the

Carolinas: Spatial heterogeneity in a current-dominated system. Deep-Sea Research II 

41(4-6):835-874. 

Blake, J.A. and B. Hilbig. 1994. Dense infaunal assemblages on the continental slope off Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina. Deep-Sea Research II 41(4-6):875-899.
References Cited 6-7

Blanton, D.B. 1996. Accounting for submerged mid-Holocene archaeological sites in the Southeast: A 

case study from the Chesapeake Bay estuary, Virginia. In: Sassaman, K.E. and D.G. Anderson, eds. 

Archaeology of the mid-Holocene Southeast. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 

Pp. 200-217.

Blumenthal, J.M., F.A. Abreu-Grobois, T.J. Austin, A.C. Broderick, M.W. Bruford, M.S. Coyne, 

G. Ebanks-Petrie, A. Formia, P.A. Meylan, A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Godley. 2009. Turtle groups or 

turtle soup: Dispersal patterns of hawksbill turtles in the Caribbean. Molecular Ecology 

18:4841-4853. Internet website: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/BlumenthalJM_2009_MolEcol.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson. 2001. 

Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in Gulf of 

Mexico deepwater oil and gas operations. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2001-011. 326 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3101.pdf. 

Accessed September 28, 2011.

Boesch, D.F. 1979. Benthic ecological studies. Chapter 6. In: Middle Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf 

environmental studies, Volume IIB. Chemical and biological benchmark studies. Contract 

No. AA550-CT6-62. Prepared by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, DC. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/

ESPIS/4/4479.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington, eds. 2003. Loggerhead sea turtles. Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Books. 319 pp.

Bonner, W.N. 1981. Grey seal - Halichoerus grypus. In: Ridgway, S.H. and R.J. Harrison, eds. 

Handbook of marine mammals, Volume 2 (Seals). Academic Press. Pp. 111-144. 

Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren, and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av 

luftkanonshyting på egg, larver og yngel. Fisken og Havet 1996(3):1-83. (Norwegian with English 

summary).

Boswell, R., T. Collett, D. McConnell, M. Frye, B. Shedd, S. Mrozewski, G. Guerin, A. Cook, 

P. Godfriaux, R. Dufrene, R. Roy, and E. Jones. 2009. Joint industry project Leg II discovers rich 

gas hydrate accumulations in sand reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Energy, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice. Methane Hydrate Newsletter Summer 2009 9(3):1-5. 

Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/Hydrates/Newsletter/

MHNewsSummer09.pdf#Page=1. Accessed August 26, 2011. 

Boulva, J. and I.A. McLaren. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in eastern Canada. 

Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 200:1-24.

Breder, C.M. 1952. On the utility of the saw of the sawfish. Copeia 1952(2):90-91.

Breland, S. 2010. NRL-SSC Scientists Investigate Acoustics in Gulf of Mexico. NRL Press 

Release 59-10r. Internet website: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2010/nrlsscscientists-investigate-acoustics-in-gulf-of-mexico. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Broderick, A.C., M.S. Coyne, W.J. Fullere, F. Glen, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Fidelity and over-wintering 

of sea turtles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274:1,533-1,538.

Brooks, R.A., C.N. Purdy, S.S. Bell, and K.J. Sulak. 2006. The benthic community of the eastern 

U.S. continental shelf: A literature synopsis of benthic faunal resources. Continental Shelf Research 

26:804-818.

Broward County Climate Change Task Force. 2009. Recommendations on sea level rise. Broward 

County, Florida, Broward County Climate Change Task Force, Science and Technical Subcommittee.

Brown, J.J. and G.W. Murphy. 2010. Atlantic sturgeon vessel-strike mortalities in the Delaware Estuary. 

Fisheries 35(2):72-83.
6-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The United States shorebird conservation 

plan. 2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 64 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/USShorebirdPlan2Ed.pdf. 

Accessed September 28, 2011.

Burns, J.J. 2002. Harbor seal and spotted seal Phoca vitulina and P. largha. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, 

and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press. Pp. 552-560. 

Bussat, S. and S. Kugler. 2009. Recording noise - estimating shear-wave velocities: Feasibility of 

offshore ambient-noise surfacewave tomography (answt) on a reservoir scale: SEG Technical 

Program Expanded Abstracts 28:1627-1631.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, S.W. Kelley, D.B. Snyder, J.M. Côté, J.S. Ramsey, 

T.D. Thibaut, N.W. Phillips, J.D. Wood, and J.D. Germano. 2003. Collection of environmental data 

within sand resource areas offshore North Carolina and the environmental implications of sand 

removal for coastal and beach restoration. Volume I: Main Text. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Leasing Division, Sand and Gravel Unit, Herndon, VA. 256 pp. OCS Report 

MMS 2000-056.

Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell. 1971. Beaked whales, Ziphius cavirostris, in the Bahamas. Florida 

Scientist 34(2):157–160.

Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell. 1989. Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps; dwarf sperm whale 

Kogia simus. In: Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals: River 

dolphins and large toothed whales. London: Academic Press. Pp. 235-260.

Cameron, G. 1999. Report on the effect of acoustic warning devices (pingers) on cetacean and pinniped 

bycatch in the California drift gillnet fishery. NMFS Contract Report No. 40JGNF900207.

Campbell, L.M., J.J. Silver, N.J. Gray, S. Ranger, A.C. Broderick, T. Fisher, M.H. Godfrey, S. Gore, 

K.V.D. Hodge, J. Jeffers, C.S. Martin, A. Mcgowan, P.B. Richardson, C. Sasso, L. Slade, and 

B.J. Godley. 2009. Co-management of sea turtle fisheries: Biogeography versus geopolitic. Marine 

Policy 33:137–145.

Campbell, R.R. 1987. Status of the hooded seal, Cystophora cristata, in Canada. The Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 101:253-265.

Canal de Panamá. 2012. Expansion program: Program description. Internet website: http://

www.pancanal.com/eng/expansion/. Accessed January 20, 2012. 

Carder, D., S. Ridgway, B. Whitaker, and J. Geraci. 1995. Hearing and echolocation in a pygmy sperm 

whale Kogia. Proceedings of the Eleventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

Orlando, Florida, December 1995. P. 20.

Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Carr, A. and A.B. Meylan. 1980. Evidence of passive migration of green turtle hatchlings in Sargassum. 

Copeia 2:366-368.

Casazza, T. and S.W. Ross. 2008. Fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum and open water tracking 

Sargassum in the western North Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin 106:348-363.

Casper, B.M. and D.A. Mann. 2006. Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma 

cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis). Environmental Biology of Fishes

76:101-08.

Casper, B.M., P.S. Lobel, and H.Y. Yan. 2003. The hearing sensitivity of the little skate, Raja erinacea: 

A comparison of two methods. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68:371-379.

Castege, I., Y. Lalanne, V. Gouriou, G. Hemery, M. Girin, F. D’Amico, C. Mouches, J. D’Elbee, 

L. Soulier, J. Pensu, D. Lafitte, and R. Pautrizel. 2007. Estimating actual seabirds mortality at sea 

and relationship with oil spills: Lessons from the Prestige oil spill in Aquitaine (France). 

Ardeola 54(2):289-307.
References Cited 6-9

Castellote, M., C.W. Clark, and M.O. Lammers. 2010. Potential negative effects in the reproduction and 

survival on fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) by shipping and airgun noise. International Whaling 

Commission Scientific Committee Document, SC/62/E3.

Caught the Skunk.com. 2011. Fishing tournaments (MD). Internet website: http://www.caught-theskunk.com/index.php?pageid=Maryland Fishing Tournaments. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Cerame-Vivas, M.J. and I.E. Gray. 1966. The distributional pattern of benthic invertebrates of the 

continental shelf off North Carolina. Ecology 47(2):260-270.

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in 

the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Cetacean and Turtle 

Assessment Program, University of Rhode Island. Final Report #AA551-CT8-48 to the Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, DC. 538 pp.

CGGVeritas. 2011. Typical seismic vessel specifications. Internet website: http://oilandgastraining.org/

data/gp21/P0728.asp?Code=6043. Accessed August 29, 2011.

Chapman, C.J. and A.D. Hawkins. 1973. A field study of hearing in the cod, Gadus morhua. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology 85:147-167.

Charif, R.A., D.K. Mellinger, K.J. Dunsmore, K.M. Fristrup, and C.W. Clark. 2002. Estimated source 

levels of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) vocalizations: Adjustments for surface interference. 

Marine Mammal Science 18(1):81-98.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2011. Chesapeake Bay Program: A watershed partnership. Internet website: 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Chester, A.J., G.R. Huntsman, P.A. Tester, and C.S. Manooch, III. 1984. South Atlantic Bight reef fish 

communities represented in hook-and-line catches. Bulletin of Marine Science 34:267-279.

Christensen, E. 1989. Shallow water use of marine vibrators. SEG Abstracts 59(1):657-659.

Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of seismic 

energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 144. Calgary, Alberta.

Chuenpagdee, R., L.E. Morgan, S.M. Maxwell, E.A. Norse, and D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting gears: 

Assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 1(10):517-524. Internet website: http://www.mcbi.org/publications/pub_pdfs/

Chuenpagdee_et_al_2003.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Cipriano, F. 2002. Atlantic white-sided dolphin. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, 

eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 49-51.

City of Wilmington. 2009. Zoning maps. Internet website: http://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/

development_services/zoning_permits/zoning_maps.aspx. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Claerbout, J.F. 1968. Synthesis of a layered medium from its acoustic transmission response. 

Geophysics 33:264-269.

Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan-Jacobs, and W.A. Hoffman. 1982a. Marine birds of the 

southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Part I. Gaviiformes through Pelicaniformes. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. 

FWS/OBS-82/01. 637 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/

3967.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan-Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1982b. Marine birds of the southeastern United States 

and Gulf of Mexico. Part II. Anseriformes. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/20. 492 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3968.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.
6-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan-Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1983. Marine birds of the southeastern United States 

and Gulf of Mexico. Part III. Charadriiformes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological 

Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-83/30. 853 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/

PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3969.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Clark, C.W. 1982. The acoustic repertoire of the southern right whale: A quantitative analysis. Animal

Behavior 30:1060-1071.

Clark, C.W. and W.T. Ellison. 2004. Potential use of low-frequency sounds by baleen whales for 

probing the environment: Evidence from models and empirical measurements. In: Thomas, J.,

C. Moss, and M. Vater, eds. Echolocation in bats and dolphins. The University of Chicago Press. 

Pp. 564-582. 

Clark, C.W. and G.J. Gagnon. 2004. Low-frequency vocal behaviors of baleen whales in the North 

Atlantic: Insights from Integrated Undersea Surveillance System detections, locations, and tracking 

from 1992 to 1996. Journal of Underwater Acoustics (USN). 48 pp. 

Clark, C.W. and G.C. Gagnon. 2006. Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise exposures 

from seismic surveys on baleen whales. International Whaling Commission SC58/E9.

Clark, C.W., J.F. Borsani, and G. Notarbartolo-Di-sciara. 2002. Vocal activity of fin whales, 

Balaenoptera physalus, in the Ligurian Sea. Marine Mammal Science 18(1):286-295. 

Clark, C.W., D. Gillespie, D.P. Nowacek, and S.E. Parks. 2007. Listening to their world: Acoustics for 

monitoring and protecting right whales in the urbanized ocean. In: Kraus, S.D. and R.M. Rolland, 

eds. The urban whale: North Atlantic right whales at the crossroads. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press. Pp. 333-357. 

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. Internet website: http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/

m395p201.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2011.

Clark, K.E. and L.J. Niles. 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Northern Atlantic Regional 

Shorebird Plan, Version 1.0. N.J. Division of Fish and Wildlife. 28 pp. Internet website: http://

www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/downloads/NATLAN4.pdf. Accessed August 22, 

2011.

Clark, R.B. 1984. Impacts of oil pollution on seabirds. Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological 

and Biological 33(1):1-22.

Clark, W.W. 1991. Recent studies of temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift 

(PTS) in animals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90:155-163.

Coastal Environments, Inc. 1977. Cultural resources evaluation of the northern Gulf of Mexico 

continental shelf, Vol. II: Historic cultural resources. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Washington DC. 

171 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4227.pdf. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

Codarin, A., L.E. Wysocki, F. Ladich, and M. Picciulin. 2009. Effects of ambient and boat noise on 

hearing and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 58(12):1880-1887. 

Cole, T.V.N., P. Hamilton, A.G. Henry, P. Duley, R.M. Pace, III, B.N. White, and T. Frasier. 2013. 

Evidence of a North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis mating ground. Endang. Species Res. 

21:55-64.

Coleman, F.C., W.F. Figueira, J.S. Ueland, and L.B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of United States 

recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958-1960. Internet website: http://

www.bio.fsu.edu/us_landings/ColemanSciencePrint.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.
References Cited 6-11

Coles, W.C. 1999. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Ph.D. Dissertation, 

College of William and Mary. Internet website: http://web.vims.edu/library/Theses/Coles99.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

Collard, S.B. 1990. The influence of oceanographic features in post-hatchling sea turtle distribution and 

dispersion in the pelagic environment. In: Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnely 

(compilers), Proc. 10th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-278. P. 111.

Collins, M.R. and T.I.J. Smith. 1997. Management briefs: Distribution of shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeons in South Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:995-1000.

Colvocoresses, J.A. and J.A. Musick. 1984. Species associations and community composition of Middle 

Atlantic Bight continental shelf demersal fishes. Fishery Bulletin 82(2):295-314.

Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, 

E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 

2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

August 2009. 222 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/

loggerheadturtle2009.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Constable, S. 2010. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics

75(5):75A67-75A81. Internet website: http://marineemlab.ucsd.edu/steve/bio/Geophysics75.pdf. 

Accessed September 2, 2011.

Constantine, R., D.H. Brunton, and T. Dennis. 2004. Dolphin-watching tour boats change bottlenose 

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation 117:299-307.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1979. South Atlantic Hard Bottom Study. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Contract No. AA551-CT8-25. 

374 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4446.pdf. No post 

date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at selected 

continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2006-045. 636 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/

3/3875.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Cooke, S.J. and I.G. Cowx. 2004. The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises. BioScience

54(9):857-859. Internet website: http://esp.ucsd.edu/forum/winter10/Syllabus_files/Cooke%20and%

20Cowx%202004.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Cope, M., D. St. Aubain, and J. Thomas. 1999. The effect of boat activity on the behavior of bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the nearshore waters of Hilton Head, South Carolina. In: Abstracts, 

13th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Wailea, HI, 

November 28-December 3, 1999. P. 37.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. Memorandum for general counsels, NEPA liaisons and 

participants in scoping. Subject: Scoping Guidance. April 30, 1981. Internet website: http://

ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/scope/scoping.htm. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997a. Environmental justice. Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, December 10, 1997. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/

resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997b. Considering cumulative effects under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Internet website: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/

cumulative_effects.html. Accessed September 6, 2011.
6-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Cowan, D.F. and B.E. Curry. 2008. Histopathology of the alarm reaction in small odontocetes. Journal 

of Comparative Pathology 139:24-33.

Cowen, R.K., J.A. Hare, and M.P. Fahay. 1993. Beyond hydrography: Can physical processes explain 

larval fish assemblages within the Middle Atlantic Bight? Bulletin of Marine Science 53(2):567-587.

Cox, T.M., A.J. Read, A. Solow, and N. Trengenza. 2001. Will harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) 

habituate to pingers? Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3:81-86.

Cox, T.M., T.J. Ragen, A.J. Read, E. Vos, R.W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, T. Cranford, 

L. Crum, A. D’amico, G. D’spain, A. Fernández, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth , F. Gulland, 

J. Hildebrand, D. Houser, T. Hullar, P.D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C.D. Macleod, P. Miller, S. Moore, 

D.C. Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, 

R. Gisiner, J. Mead, and L. Benner. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on 

beaked whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7(3):177-187.

Crawford, W.C. and S.C. Singh. 2008. Sediment shear velocities from seafloor compliance 

measurements: Faroes-Shetland Basin case study. Geophysical Prospecting 56:313-325.

Croll, D.A., C.W. Clark, A. Acevedo, B. Tershy, S. Flores, J. Gedamke, and J. Urban. 2002. Only male 

fin whales sing loud songs. Nature 417:809.

Crowder, L. and E. Norse. 2008. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management 

and marine spatial planning. In: Douvere, F. and C.N. Ehler, eds. The role of spatial planning in 

implementing ecosystem-based, sea use management. Special issue of Marine Policy 32(5):772-778.

CSA International, Inc. 2009. Ecological functions of nearshore hardbottom habitat in east Florida: A 

literature synthesis. Prepared for the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches 

and Coastal Systems, Tallahassee, FL. 186 pp + apps. Internet website: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

beaches/publications/pdf/EFNHBE.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. In prep. Quieting Technologies for Reducing Noise During Seismic Surveying 

and Pile Driving Workshop. A workshop summary report for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management. Contract Number M12PC00008. 61 pp. + apps.

Cudahy, E. and W. Ellison. 2002. A review of the potential for in vivo tissue damage by exposure to 

underwater sound. Naval Submarine Medical Research Library, Groton, CT.

Cummings, W.C. 1985. Bryde’s whale. In: Ridgeway, S.H. and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine 

mammals, Volume 3: The sirenians and baleen whales. London: Academic Press. Pp. 137-154.

Cummins, R., Jr., J.B. Rivers, and P. Struhsaker. 1962. Snapper trawling explorations along the 

southeastern coast of the United States. Comm. Fish. Rev. 24:1-7.

Currin, M. and S. Ross. 2002. Boating uses, economic significance, and information for North 

Carolina’s offshore area “The Point.” Volume I: Characterization of recreational and commercial 

fisheries. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-044. 62 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3074.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 17, 

2011.

Dadswell, M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of biological 

data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NOAA Technical Report 

NMFS-14, FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 140. 45 pp. Internet website: http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/

tr14.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Dahlheim, M.E. 1987. Bio-acoustics of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Ph.D. thesis, Univ. 

British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 315 pp. 

Dahlheim, M.E. and D.K. Ljungblad. 1990. Preliminary hearing study on gray whales (Eschrichtius 

robustus) in the field. In: Thomas, J.A. and R.A. Kastelein, eds. Sensory ability of cetaceans, 

laboratory and field evidence. New York, NY: Plenum. Pp. 335-346.
References Cited 6-13

Dalen, J. and G.M. Knutsen. 1986. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by 

offshore seismic explorations. Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, Halifax.

Dalen, J. and A. Raknes. 1985. Scaring effects on fish from three dimensional seismic surveys. Institute 

of Marine Research Report FO 8504/8505, Bergen, Norway.

Darnet, M., P. Van Der Sman, R.E. Plessix, J.L. Johnson, and M. Rosenquist. 2010. Exploring with 

controlled source electro-magnetic (CSEM) methods: From 2D profiling to 3D multi-azimuth 

surveying. EGM 2010 International Workshop, Adding new value to Electromagnetic, Gravity and 

Magnetic Methods for Exploration, Capri, Italy, April 11-14, 2010. 5 pp. Internet website: http://

www.eageseg.org/data/egm2010/Sessione%20A/Oral%20papers/A_OP_06.pdf. Accessed September 

2, 2011. 

Davies, J.L. 1957. The geography of the gray seal. Journal of Mammalogy 38:297-310.

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Delaware reef guide 2009-2010. Internet website: http://

www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/Fisheries/Documents/2009-10%20Delaware%20reef%20guide.pdf. No 

post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Deng, X., H.-J. Wagner, and A.N. Popper. 2011. The inner ear and its coupling to the swim bladder in 

the deep-sea fish Antimora rostrata (Teleostei: Moridae). Deep Sea Research, Part I, 58:27-37. 

Dept. of Defense. 2010. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Office of the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, and Office of the Director, 

Operational Tests and Evaluation. Report on the Compatibility of Department of Defense (DoD) 

activities with oil and gas resources development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). February 

2010. 44 pp. Internet website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/offshore/dod_ocs_rept_02152010_

release.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2013.

Desharnais, F., A. Vanderlaan, C. Taggart, M. Hazen, and A. Hay. 1999. Preliminary results on the 

acoustic characterization of the northern right whale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

106:2163.

Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic 

communication. Biology Letters 6:51-54. 

Diaz, R.J., J.A. Blake, and D.C. Rhoads. 1993. Benthic study of the continental slope off Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina. Volume II, Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Atlantic OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 93-0015. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/

PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4817.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Diaz, R.J., G.R. Cutter, and K.W. Able. 2003. The importance of physical and biogenic structure to 

juvenile fishes on the shallow intercontinental shelf. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 26:12-20.

DiFrancesco, D., T. Meyer, A. Christensen, and D. FitzGerald. 2009. Gravity gradiometry – today and 

tomorrow. In: 11th SAGA Biennial Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Swaziland, 16-18 September 

2009. Pp. 80-83. Internet website: http://www.sagaonline.co.za/2009Conference/CD%20Handout/

SAGA%202009/PDFs/Abstracts_and_Papers/difrancesco_paper1.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2011. 

Discovery of Sound in the Sea. North Atlantic right whale. Internet website: 

http://www.dosits.org/audio/marinemammals/baleenwhales/rightwhale/. Accessed January 31, 2013.

DNV Energy. 2007. Effects of seismic surveys on fish, fish catches, and sea mammals. Report for the 

Cooperation Group – Fishery Industry and Petroleum Industry, Report No. 2007-0512. 30 pp.

Doksaeter, L, O.R. Godø, N.O. Handegard, P.H. Kvadsheim, F-P.A. Lam, C. Donovan, and P.J. Miller. 

2009. Behavioral responses of herring (Clupea harengus) to 1–2 and 6–7 kHz sonar signals and killer 

whale feeding sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125:554-564.

Dolar, M.L.L. 2002. Fraser’s dolphin. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 485-487.
6-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Dooley, J.K. 1972. Fishes associated with the pelagic Sargassum complex with a discussion of the 

Sargassum community. Contributions in Marine Science, University of Texas16:1-32.

Dooling, R.J. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Hearing in birds and reptiles: An overview. In: Dooling, R.J., 

A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles. New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. Pp. 1-12.

Douglas, A.B., J. Calambokidis, S. Raverty, S.J. Jeffries, D.M. Lambourn, and S.A. Norman. 2008. 

Incidence of ship strikes of large whales in Washington State. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK. 

Douvere, F. and C.N. Ehler. 2009. New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from 

European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management 

90(1):77-88. 

Dow Piniak, W.E.D., D.A. Mann, S.A. Eckert, and C.A. Harms. 2012a. Amphibious hearing in sea 

turtles. In: Popper, A.N. and A. Hawkins, eds. The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. Advances in 

Experimental Medicine and Biology 730. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Pp. 83-87.

Dow Piniak, W.E.D., S.A. Eckert, C.A. Harms, and E.M. Stringer. 2012b. Underwater hearing 

sensitivity of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Assessing the potential effect of 

anthropogenic noise. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Herndon, VA under BOEM Contract M10PX00330. 35 pp. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-01156. 

Doyle, M.J., W.W. Morse, and A.W. Kendall, Jr. 1993. A comparison of larval fish assemblages in the 

temperate zone of the northeast Pacific and northwest Atlantic oceans. Bulletin of Marine Science

53(2):588-644. 

Draganov, D., X. Campman, J. Thorbecke, A. Verdel, and K. Wapenaar. 2009. Reflection images from 

ambient seismic noise. Geophysics 74(5):A63-A67.

Dubrovskiy, N.A. 1990. On the two auditory subsystems in dolphins. In: Thomas, J.A. and 

R.A. Kastelein, eds. Sensory abilities of cetaceans – Laboratory and field evidence. New York, NY: 

Plenum Press. Pp. 233-254. 

Duchesne, M., G. Bellefleur, M. Galbraith, R. Kolesar, and R. Kuzmiski. 2007. Strategies for waveform 

processing in sparker data. Marine Geophysical Researches 28:153-164. 

Duffield, D.A. and R.S. Wells. 1990. Bottlenose dolphins: Comparison of census data from dolphins in 

captivity with a wild population. IMATA Proceedings, 1990.

Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, P. Geoghegan, J.J. Reichle, J.K. Menezes, and J.K. Watson. 1992. Alewives 

avoid high-frequency sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:407-416.

Dunton, K.J., A. Jordaan, K.A. McKown, D.O. Conover, and M.G. Frisk. 2010. Abundance and 

distribution of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, 

determined from five fishery-independent surveys. Fishery Bulletin 108(4):450-465. Internet 

website: http://fishbull.noaa.gov/1084/dunton.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Dustan, P., B.H. Lidz, and E.A. Shinn. 1991. Impact of exploratory wells, offshore Florida: A biological 

assessment. Bulletin of Marine Science 48(1):94-124.

Dvorak, P. 2010. Google to finance off shore connection cable. Windpower engineering. Internet 

website: http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/electrical/grid/google-to-finance-off-shoreconnection-cable/. Posted November 8, 2010. Accessed August 5, 2011. 

Eckert, S.A. 2006. High-use oceanic areas for Atlantic leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) as 

identified using satellite telemetered location and dive information. Marine Biology 149:1257-1267.

Efroymson, R.A., W.H. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2000. Ecological risk assessment 

framework for low-altitude overflights by fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft. 

ORNL/TM-2000/289. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 115 pp.
References Cited 6-15

Eklund, A.M. and T.E. Targett. 1990. Reproductive seasonality of fishes inhabiting hard bottom areas in 

the Middle Atlantic Bight. Copeia 1990(4):1180-1184. 

Eklund, A.M. and T.E. Targett. 1991. Seasonality of fish catch rates and species composition from the 

hard bottom trap fishery in the Middle Atlantic Bight U.S. east coast. Fisheries Research 12(1):1-22. 

Elliott-Smith, E. and S.M. Haig. 2004. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). In: Poole, A., ed. The 

birds of North America online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Issue No. 002, revised 

November 1, 2004. Internet website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/002.doi:10.2173/bna.2. 

Accessed August 22, 2011. 

Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2011. 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.1523-1739.2011.01803.x.

Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based paradigm to assess 

behavioral responses of marine mammals to sound. Conservation Biology 26:21-28.

Engås, A. and S. Løkkeborg. 2002. Effects of seismic shooting and vessel-generated noise on fish 

behaviour and catch rates. Bioacoustics 12(2-3):313-316.

Engås, A., S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona, and A.V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance 

and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:2238-2249. 

Enger, P.S. 1981. Frequency discrimination in teleosts-central or peripheral? In: Tavolga, W.N., 

A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing and sound communication in fishes. New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. Pp. 243-255.

Erickson, D.L., A. Kahnle, M.J. Millard, E.A. Mora, M. Bryja, A. Higgs, J. Mohler, M. DuFour, 

G. Kenney, J. Sweka, and E.K. Pikitch. 2011. Use of pop-up satellite archival tags to identify 

oceanic-migratory patterns for adult Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus

Mitchell, 1815. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27:356-365. Internet website: http://

www.oceanconservationscience.org/publications/files/papers/Erickson_et_al_2011_Atlantic_

Sturgeon.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Eskesen, I.G., J. Teilmann, B.M. Geertsen, G. Desportes, F. Riget, R. Dietz, F. Larsen, and U. Siebert. 

2009. Stress level in wild harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) during satellite tagging measured 

by respiration, heart rate and cortisol. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United 

Kingdom 89:885-892.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 2009. Update of statistical area 

definitions and guidance on their uses. OMB Bulletin No. 10-02. December 2009. Internet website: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/bulletins/b10-02.pdf Accessed August 24, 

2011.

Fay, R.R. 1988. Hearing in vertebrates: A psychophysics databook. Winnetka, IL: Hill-Fay Associates.

Fay, R.R. 2005. Sound source localization by fishes. In: Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay, eds. Sound source 

localization. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Pp. 36-66.

Fay, R.R. and A. Megela-Simmons. 1999. The sense of hearing in fishes and amphibians. In: Fay, R.R. 

and A.N. Popper, eds. Comparative hearing: Fish and amphibians. New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. Pp. 269-318.

Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner ears and processing. 

Hearing Research 149:1-10.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012. North American LNG import/export terminals. Internet 

website: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng/LNG-existing.pdf. Last updated May 24, 

2011. Accessed July 5, 2012. 
6-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Federal Register. 1967. Native fish and wildlife endangered species. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office 

of the Secretary. March 11, 1967. 32 FR 48, p. 4001. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/pdfs/fr/fr32-4001.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 1976. Determination of critical habitat for American crocodile, California condor, 

Indiana bat, and Florida manatee. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

September 24, 1976. 41 FR 187, pp. 41914-41916. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/

federal_register/fr115.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Federal Register. 1979. Designated critical habitat; Determination of critical habitat for the leatherback 

sea turtle. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. March 23, 1979. 44 FR 58, pp. 17710-17712. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr44-17710.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Federal Register. 1983. Proclamation 5030 – Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of 

America. Presidential Documents-Title 3. March 14, 1983. 48 FR 50, pp. 10605-10606. Internet 

website: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/031483-proc_5030_48fr10605.pdf. Accessed 

January 18, 2012.

Federal Register. 1994a. Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. February 16, 1994. 59 FR 32, pp. unknown. 

Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-02-16/html/94-3685.htm. Accessed 

October 31, 2013. 

Federal Register. 1994b. Designated critical habitat; Northern right whale. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. June 3, 1994. 

59 FR 106, pp. 28793-28808. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-06-03/html/

94-13500.htm. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Federal Register. 1998a. Designated critical habitat; green and hawksbill sea turtles. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

September 2, 1998. 63 FR 170, pp. 46693-46701. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

FR-1998-09-02/pdf/98-23533.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Federal Register. 1998b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Notice of availability for the 

final recovery plan for shortnose sturgeon. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. December 17, 1998. 63 FR 242, 

pp. 69613-69615. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-12-17/pdf/98-

33465.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 1998c. Executive Order 13089 – Coral Reef Protection. June 11, 1998. 63 FR 115, 

pp. 32701-32703. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-06-16/pdf/98-

16161.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013. 

Federal Register. 1999. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 – Invasive Species. February 3, 

1999. 64 FR 25, pp. 6183-6186. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-02-

08/pdf/99-3184.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013.

Federal Register. 2000a. Executive Order 13158 – Marine Protected Areas. May 26, 2000. 65 FR 105, 

pp. 34909-34911. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-05-31/pdf/00-

13830.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013.

Federal Register. 2000b. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; Marine 

seismic reflection data collection in southern California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. March 28, 2000. 65 FR 60, pp. 16374-16379. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-03-28/pdf/00-7611.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2012.

Federal Register. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final determination of critical 

habitat for wintering piping plovers. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. July 10,

2001. 66 FR 132, pp. 36038-36143. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-07-

10/pdf/01-16905.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.
References Cited 6-17

Federal Register. 2003a. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; 

Oceanographic surveys in the Hess Deep, Eastern Equatorial Pacific Ocean. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Commerce. July 11, 2003. 68 FR 133, pp. 41314-41321. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-07-11/pdf/03-17622.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2011. 

Federal Register. 2003b. Endangered and threatened species; Final endangered status for a distinct 

population segment of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in the United States. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

April 1, 2003. 68 FR 62, pp. 15674-15680. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2003-04-01/pdf/03-7786.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 2006a. Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Regulations. U.S. Dept. 

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. January 5, 2006. 71 FR 3, 

pp. 788-831. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-01-05/pdf/06-11.pdf. 

Accessed: January17, 2012. 

Federal Register. 2006b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of native species that 

are candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on 

resubmitted petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. September 12, 2006. 71 FR 176, pp. 53756-53835. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-09-12/pdf/06-7375.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Federal Register. 2007. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 5-Year Review of 

16 Southeastern Species. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. September 21, 2007. 

72 FR 183, pp. 54057-54059. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-09-21/pdf/

E7-18558.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Federal Register. 2008a. Record of Decision for the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the 

Outer Continental Shelf. January 10, 2008. 73 FR 7, pp. 1894-1895. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-01-10/pdf/E8-210.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2011.

Federal Register. 2008b. Dept. of the Interior, Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of the Secretary. 73 FR 200, pp. 61292-61323. 

Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/DOI_NEPA_Regs.pdf. Accessed 

August 4, 2011.

Federal Register. 2008c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical 

habitat for the wintering population of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) in North Carolina. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. October 21, 2008. 73 FR 204, 

pp. 62816-62841. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-10-21/pdf/E8-

23206.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Federal Register. 2008d. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Mid-Atlantic 

proposed oil and gas Lease Sale 220. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

November 13, 2008. 73 FR 220, pp. 67201-67206. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

FR-2008-11-13/pdf/E8-26995.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 2008e. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of the Secretary. October 15, 2008. 73 FR 200, pp. 61292-61323. 

Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/DOI_NEPA_Regs.pdf. Accessed 

August 4, 2011.

Federal Register. 2009a. Geological and geophysical exploration (G&G) on the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. January 21, 

2009. 74 FR 12, pp. 3636-3637. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-01-21/

pdf/E9-1063.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2011.
6-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Federal Register. 2009b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical 

habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas. U.S. Dept.

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. May 19, 2009. 74 FR 95, pp. 23476-23600. Internet 

website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-05-19/pdf/E9-11245.pdf. Accessed August 22, 

2011.

Federal Register. 2009c. Endangered and threatened species; critical habitat for the endangered distinct 

population segment of the smalltooth sawfish. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

September 2, 2009. 74 FR 169, pp. 45353-45378. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

FR-2009-09-02/pdf/E9-21186.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 2010a. General provisions; revised list of migratory birds. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. March 1, 2010. 75 FR 39, pp. 9282-9314. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-01/pdf/FR-2010-03-01.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2012.

Federal Register. 2010b. Executive Order 13547 – Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great 

Lakes. Presidential Documents-Title 3. July 22, 2010. 75 FR 140, pp. 43023-43027. Internet 

website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-22/pdf/2010-18169.pdf. Accessed January 18, 

2012.

Federal Register. 2010c. Geological and geophysical exploration (G&G) on the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. April 2, 2010. 

75 FR 16830, pp. 16830-16833. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-

02/pdf/2010-7581.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2012.

Federal Register. 2010d. Commercial leasing for wind power on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

offshore Delaware—Request for Interest (RFI). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement. April 26, 2010. 75 FR79, pp. 21653-21657. Internet 

website: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/State_Activities/

FinalDelawareRFI.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2010e. Commercial leasing for wind power on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

offshore Maryland—Request for Interest (RFI). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement. November 9, 2010. 75 FR 216, pp. 68824-68828. 

Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-11-09/pdf/2010-28269.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2010f. Endangered and threatened wildlife and designating critical habitat for the 

endangered North Atlantic right whale. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. October 6, 2010. 75 FR 193, pp. 61690-61691. 

Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-06/pdf/2010-25214.pdf. Accessed 

August 24, 2011.

Federal Register. 2010g. Endangered and threatened species; proposed listing of nine distinct population 

segments of loggerhead sea turtles as endangered or threatened. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. March 16, 2010. 75 FR 50, pp. 12598-12656. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-16/pdf/2010-5370.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Federal Register. 2010h. Endangered and threatened wildlife; notice of 90-day finding on a petition to 

revise critical habitat for the endangered leatherback sea turtle under the Endangered Species Act. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. July 16, 2010. 75 FR 136, pp. 41436-41438. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-16/pdf/2010-17531.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Federal Register. 2010i. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 

snapper-grouper fishery off the southern Atlantic states; Amendment 17B. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

December 30, 2010. 75 FR 250, pp. 82280-82295. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

FR-2010-12-30/pdf/2010-32831.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.
References Cited 6-19

Federal Register. 2010j. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Mid-Atlantic proposed oil and gas Lease 

Sale 220 and geological and geophysical exploration (G&G) on the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. April 29, 2010. 75 FR 82, pp. 22623-

22624. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-29/pdf/2010-10017.pdf. 

Accessed August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 2010k. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Mid-Atlantic proposed oil and gas Lease 

Sale 220. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. May 7, 2010. 75 FR 88, 

pp. 25291-25292. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/2010-

10981.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 2010l. Preliminary Revised 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program 2007-2012. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. April 2, 

2010. 75 FR 63, pp. 16833-16836. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-

02/pdf/2010-7579.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2013.

Federal Register. 2011a. Reorganization of Title 30: Bureaus of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

and Ocean Energy Management. October 18, 2011. 76 FR 201, pp. 64432-64780. Internet website: 

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/FR_Publication_10-18-11.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2012.

Federal Register. 2011b. Research area within Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. October 14, 2011. 76 FR 199, 

pp. 63824-63833. Internet website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/management/research/pdfs/

fr_2011_26633_res_area.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2012.

Federal Register. 2011c. Renewable energy alternate uses of existing facilities on the Outer Continental 

Shelf—acquire a lease noncompetitively. U.S .Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. May 16, 2011. 76 FR 84, pp. 28178-28180. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-16/pdf/2011-11908.pdf Accessed December 17, 2011.

Federal Register. 2011d. Commercial wind lease issuance and site characterization activities; Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf offshore NJ, DE, MD, and VA. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. February 9, 2011. 76 FR 27, pp. 7226-7228. 

Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2774.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2011e. Endangered and threatened species; determination of nine distinct population 

segments of loggerhead sea turtles as endangered or threatened. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

September 16, 2011. Number not assigned yet. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

species/loggerhead_listing_finalrule_filed.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2011.

Federal Register. 2011f. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Endangered Species Act listing 

determination for Atlantic bluefin tuna. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. June 1, 2011. 76 FR 105, pp. 31556-31570. 

Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-01/pdf/2011-13627.pdf. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

Federal Register. 2012a. Commercial leasing for wind power development on the Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS) offshore Virginia—Call for information and nominations. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. February 3, 2012. Vol. 77, No. 23. pp. 5545-5552. Internet 

website: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/State_Activities/

VA%20Call%20for%20Information.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2013.

Federal Register. 2012b. Commercial leasing for wind power development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) offshore North Carolina—Call for information and nominations. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. December 13, 2012. Vol. 77, No. 240. 

pp. 74204-74213. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/

Renewable_Energy_Program/State_Activities/North%20Carolina%20Call%20Docket%20No.%20

BOEM-2012-0088.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2013.
6-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Federal Register. 2012c. Executive Order 13632 – Establishing the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task 

Force. Presidential Documents-Title 3. December 14, 2012. 77 FR 241, pp. 74341-74344. Internet 

website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-14/pdf/2012-30310.pdf. Accessed October 1, 

2013.

Federal Register. 2012d. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Threatened and endangered 

status for distinct population segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Northeast Region. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

February 6, 2012. 77 FR 24, pp. 5880-5912. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2012-02-06/html/2012-1946.htm. Accessed August 7, 2013. 

Federal Register. 2012e. Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Final White-Tailed 

Deer Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

Indiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. December 13, 2012. 77 FR 240, p. 74204. 

Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-13/pdf/2012-30037.pdf. Accessed 

October 1, 2013.

Federal Register. 2012f. Notice of Availability of a draft programmatic environmental impact statement. 

U.S. Dept., Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. March 30, 2012. 77 FR 62, pp. 19321. Internet 

website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?browsePath=2012%2F03%2F03-

30%5C%2F6%2FInterior+Department&granuleId=2012-7693&packageId=FR-2012-03-30&from

Browse=true. Accessed June 14, 2012.

Federal Register. 2012g. Notice of extension of comment period. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management. June 4, 2012. 77 FR 107, pp. 32994-32995. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?browsePath=2012%2F06%2F06-04%5C%2F2%

2FInterior+Department&granuleId=2012-13403&packageId=FR-2012-06-04&fromBrowse=true. 

Accessed June 14, 2012.

Federal Register. 2013a. Commercial wind lease issuance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf 

offshore Delaware. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. January 18, 

2013. 78 FR 13, p. 4167. http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/

Smart_from_the_Start/MidAtlanticWEAs_DraftEA.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013. 

Federal Register. 2013b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Endangered Species Act listing 

determination for alewife and blueback herring. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

August 12, 2001. 78 FR 155, pp. 48944-48994. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

FR-2013-08-12/pdf/2013-19380.pdf. Accessed September 10 2013.

Federal Register. 2013c. Endangered and threatened wildlife; 90-day finding on two petitions to list 

white marlin as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. January 30, 2013. 78 FR 20, pp 

6299-6303. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/ESA%20Petition/78FR6299.pdf. 

Accessed January 30, 2013.

Federal Register. 2013d. Endangered and threatened wildlife; 90-day finding on petitions to list the 

dusky shark as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. July 10, 2001. 66 FR 132, pp. 36038-36143. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11862.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2013.

Federal Register. 2013e. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat 

for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 

caretta); proposed rule. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. March 25, 2013. 

78 FR 57, pp. 18000-18082. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-

25/pdf/2013-06458.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013. 
References Cited 6-21

Federal Register. 2013f. Endangered and threatened species: Designation of critical habitat for the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean Loggerhead Sea Turtle Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and 

determination regarding critical habitat for the North Pacific Ocean Loggerhead DPS; proposed rule. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. July 18, 2013. 

78 FR 138, pp. 43006-43054. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-

18/pdf/2013-17204.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013. 

Federal Register. 2013g. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status for 

the Rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa); proposed rule. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. September 30, 2013. 78 FR 189, pp. 60024-60098. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-30/pdf/2013-22700.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013.

Fewtrell, J.L. and R.D. McCauley. 2012. Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and 

squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64 (2012):984-993.

Finkbeiner, E.M., B.P. Wallace, J.E. Moore, R.L. Lewiston, L.B. Crowder, and A.J. Read. 2011. 

Cumulative estimates of sea turtle bycatch and mortality in USA fisheries between 1990 and 2007. 

Biological Conservation 144:2719-2727.

Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2010. Frequency-dependent and longitudinal changes in noise-induced 

hearing loss in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 128:567-570.

Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in 

masked hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a 

seismic watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:2929-2940.

Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 118:2696-2705.

Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and R.L. Dear. 2010a. Growth and recovery of temporary 

threshold shift at 3 kHz in bottlenose dolphins: Experimental data and mathematical models. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America 127:3256-3266.

Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and R.L. Dear. 2010b. Temporary threshold shift in a 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to intermittent tones. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 127:3267-3272. 

Fish, J.F. and G.C. Offutt. 1972. Hearing thresholds from toadfish, Opsanu tau, measured in the 

laboratory and field. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51:1318-1321.

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2011. Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine 

Research Reserve. Internet website: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/gtm/. Last updated 

August 2, 2011. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011. 2010 Statewide nesting totals. Internet 

website: http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/statewide/. Accessed August 19,

2011.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2011. Coastal 

and marine habitats; Artificial reefs – Florida. Internet website: http://ocean.floridamarine.org/mrgis/

Description_Layers_Marine.htm#benthic. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Florida Power and Light Company and Quantum Resources, Inc. 2005. Florida Power and Light 

Company. St. Lucie Plant Annual Environmental Radiological Operating Report. 57 pp.

Florida Sportsman. 2011. Florida Sportsman saltwater fishing tournament calendar.
6-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Foley, A.M., K.E. Singel, P.H. Dutton, T.M. Summers, A.E. Redlow, and J. Lessman. 2007. 

Characteristics of a green turtle (Chelonia mydas) assemblage in northwestern Florida determined 

during a hypothermic stunning event. Gulf of Mexico Science 2:131-143. Internet website: 

http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=07foley_0757.pdf&objid=

57695&dltype=publication. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Ford, J.K.B. 2002. Killer whale. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 669-676. 

Francis, C.D. and J.R. Barber. 2013. A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: An 

urgent conservation priority. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11(6):305–313. 

Frankel, A.S. 2002. Sound production. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 1126-1138. 

Frankel, A.S. and C.W. Clark. 1998. Results of low-frequency playback of M-sequence noise to 

humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1998:521-535.

Frankel, A.S., C.W. Clark, L.M. Herman, and C.M. Gabriele. 1995. Spatial distribution, habitat 

utilization, movements and social interactions of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, off 

Hawai'i using acoustic and visual techniques. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1134-1146.

Fraser, B. and Environmental Health News. 2012. Massive dolphin die-off in Peru may remain a 

mystery. Scientific American. April 6, 2012. Internet website: http://www.scientificamerican.com/

article.cfm?id=massive-dolphin-die-off-in-peru-may-remain-a-mystery. Accessed November 9, 

2013. 

Fraser, G.S., J. Russell, and W.M. Von Zharen. 2006. Produced water from offshore oil and gas 

installations on the Grand Banks, Newfoundland and Labrador: Are the potential effects to seabirds 

sufficiently known? Marine Ornithology 34:147-156. Internet website: http://gsfraser.blog.yorku.ca/

files/2009/09/Marine-Ornithology-2006-Fraser-et-al.1.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2011.

Fraser, S.B. and G.R. Sedberry. 2008. Reef morphology and invertebrate distribution at continental shelf 

edge reefs in the South Atlantic Bight. Southeastern Naturalist 7(2):191-206. Internet website: 

http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Meetings/APandComm/HabCoral08/Attach20hFraser%20and%20

Sedberry%202008%20Shelf-Edge%20Reefs%20MPAs.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Frazel, D.W. 2009. Site profile of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. 

Prepared for The Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. August 2009. 

Internet website: http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Doc/PDF/Reserve/GTM_SiteProfile.pdf. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

Frehner, M., S.M. Schmalholz, R. Holzner, and Y. Podladchikov. 2006. Interpretation of hydrocarbon 

microtremors as pore fluid oscillations driven by ambient seismic noise: Presented at the Workshop 

on Passive Seismic, EAGE.

Freiwald, A., J.H. Fosså, A. Grehan, T. Koslow, and J.M. Roberts. 2004. Cold-water coral reefs, out of 

sight no longer out of mind. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Internet website: http://

www.ourplanet.com/wcmc/pdfs/Cold-waterCoralReefs.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 17, 

2011.

Fristrup, K.M., L.T. Hatch, and C.W. Clark. 2003. Variation in humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) song length in relation to low-frequency sound broadcasts. Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America 113(6):3411-3424.

Froglia, C., G. Rivas, S.G. Colella, and G.S. Panzeri. 1998. A Societa Italiana di Biologia Marina, 

Livorno (Italy) Istituto di Ricerca sulla Pesca Marittima, CNR Largo Fiera della Pesca, 60125 Ancona 

Italy. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 5(1, pt 2):545-548. October 1998.

Frost, K.J., and L.F. Lowry. 1994. Assessment of injury to harbor seals in Prince William Sound, Alaska 

and adjacent areas following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Marine mammal Study No. 5. Exxon Valdez

oil spill, State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment, final report. PB-96-197116/XAB.
References Cited 6-23

Fugro. 2003. Geophysical and geological techniques for the investigation of near-seabed soils and rocks. 

A handbook for non-specialists. U.S. Rev. 02-23/03. 55 pp. Internet website: http://www.fugrosurvey.nl/downloads/corporate/other/GP-GT-TECHNIQUES-handbook.pdf. Accessed September 2, 

2011. 

Fugro Gravity and Magnetic Services. 2012. Offshore Gulf of Mexico USA non-exclusive data. Internet 

website: http://www.fugro-gravmag.com/nex_na/offshore_gulf.php?region=Offshore%20Gulf%20of

%20Mexico#aeromag. Accessed January 19, 2012. 

Gabriel, W.L. 1992. Persistence of demersal fish assemblages between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia, 

northwest Atlantic. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 14 (September 6-8, 1989):29-46.

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J. Kelly, A.R. Tripp, and G.A. Wolff. 1989. Historic shipwrecks and 

magnetic anomalies of the northern Gulf of Mexico: Reevaluation of Archaeological Resource 

Management Zone 1, Volume II: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0024. 

242 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3679.pdf. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

Gartner, J.V., S.W. Ross, A.M. Necaise, and K.J. Sulak. 2006. Near-bottom aggregations of mesopelagic 

animals along the continental slope off North Carolina and Virginia, western north Atlantic Ocean. 

EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 87(36). 

Gaskin, D.E. 1992. The status of the harbour porpoise. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 106:36-54.

Gearin, P.J., M.E. Gosho, L. Cooke, R. Delong, J. Laake, and D. Greene. 1996. Acoustic alarm 

experiment in the 1995 Northern Washington Marine Setnet Fishery. NMML and Makah Tribal 

Fisheries Management Division Report.

Gearin, P.J., M.E. Gosho, J.L. Laake, L. Cooke, R.L. Delong, and K.M. Hughes. 2000. Experimental 

testing of acoustic alarms (pingers) to reduce bycatch of harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in the 

state of Washington. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2:1-10.

Gedamke, J., S. Frydman, and N. Gales. 2008. Risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: 

preliminary results from simulations accounting for uncertainty and individual variation. International 

Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/60/E9. 10 pp.

Gedamke, J., N. Gales, and S. Frydman. 2011. Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic 

surveys: The effect of uncertainty and individual variation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 129:496-506.

Genter Consulting Group, Inc. 2011. Comparison of the economic impact of the red snapper fishery by 

sector in the South Atlantic. 2 pp. Internet website: http://www.joincca.org/media%20room/South%

20Atlantic/South%20Atlantic%20red%20snapper%20economics%202011.pdf. Accessed August 23, 

2011.

Gentner, B. and S. Steinback. 2008. The economic contribution of marine angler expenditures in the 

United States, 2006. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Mem.NMFS-F/SPO-94. 301 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/AnglerExpenditureReport/

AnglerExpendituresReport_ALL.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Gentry, R., A. Bowles, W. Ellison, J. Finneran, C, Greene, D. Kastak, D. Ketten, J. Miller, P. Nachtigall, 

W.J. Richardson, B. Southall, J. Thomas, and P. Tyack. 2004. Presentation at the Second Plenary 

Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals, 28-30 April 2004, 

Arlington, VA. Internet website: http://www.mmc.gov/sound/plenary2/pdf/gentryetal.pdf. 

Geophysical Service, Inc. 2011a. Marine seismic survey vessel: M/V GSI Admiral, vessel 

specifications. Internet website: http://www.geophysicalservice.com/Site_Files/My_Files/Seismic%

20Fleet/GSI%20Admiral%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2011.
6-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Geophysical Service, Inc. 2011b. Marine seismic survey vessel: M/V GSI Pacific, vessel specifications. 

Internet website: http://www.geophysicalservice.com/Site_Files/My_Files/Seismic%20Fleet/GSI%

20Pacific%20Spec%20Sheet,%20Updated%20May%202008.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2011.

Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division. 2011. Artificial reefs: Reef maps and 

coordinates. Internet website: http://coastalgadnr.org/node/2089. No post date. Accessed 

August 17, 2011.

Georgia Ports Authority. 2010. Economic impact. Internet website: http://www.gaports.com/corporate/

AboutUs/EconomicImpact.aspx. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Georgia Ports Authority. 2012. Port of Savannah. Internet website: http://www.gaports.com/. Accessed 

July 5, 2012. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: 

A review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-12.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1982. Study of the effects of oil on cetaceans. Report by the University 

of Guelph for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1985. Expanded studies of the effects of oil on cetaceans, Part I. Report 

by the University of Guelph for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Washington, DC.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals 

and turtles. In: Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. Long term environmental effects of offshore 

oil and gas development. London and New York, NY: Elsevier Applied Science Publ. Ltd. Pp. 

587-617.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. 1990. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press.

Gerstein, E.R., L. Gerstein, S.E. Forsythe, and J.E. Blue. 1999. The underwater audiogram of the West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105:3575-3583.

Gettrust, J.F., J.H. Ross, and M.M. Rowe. 1991. Development of a low frequency, deep tow 

geoacoustics system. Sea Technol. 32:23–32.

Gilbert, J.R. and N. Guldager. 1998. Status of harbor and gray seal populations in northern New 

England, Final report. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. NMFS/NER 

Cooperative Agreement 14-16-009-1557. 

Gilmore, R.G., Jr., C.J. Donohoe, D.W. Cooke, and D.J. Herrema. 1981. Fishes of the Indian River 

Lagoon and adjacent waters. Harbor Branch Tech. Rep. No. 41. 64 pp.

Gitschlag, G.R. 1996. Migration and diving behavior of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles along the 

U.S. southeastern Atlantic coast. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 205:115-135.

Godley, B.J., A.C. Broderick, F. Glen, and G.C. Hays. 2003. Post-nesting movements and submergence 

patterns of loggerhead marine turtles in the Mediterranean assessed by satellite tracking. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 287:119-134. Internet website: http://www.seaturtle.org/

mtrg/pubs/godley_JEMBE_03.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Godley, B.J., J.M. Blumenthal, A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, L.A. Hawkes, and M.J. Witt. 

2008. Satellite tracking of sea turtles: Where have we been and where do we go next? Endangered 

Species Research 4:3-22. Internet website: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2007/3/n003pp16.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

Godley, B.J., C. Barbosa, M. Bruford, A.C. Broderick, P. Catry, M.S. Coyne, A. Formia, G.C. Hays, and 

M.J. Witt. 2010. Unravelling migratory connectivity in marine turtles using multiple methods. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 47:769-778. Internet website: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/

GodleyBJ_2010_JApplEcol.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.
References Cited 6-25

Goertner, J.F. 1982. Prediction of underwater explosion safe ranges for sea mammals. Naval Surface 

Weapons Center, Silver Spring, MD. Internet website: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/

a139823.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Goold, J.C. 1996. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis in 

conjunction with seismic surveying. Journal of the Marine Biological Association 76:811-820.

Gorbatikov, A.V., Stepanova, M. Yu., and G.E. Korablev. 2008. Microseisis field affected by local 

geological heterogeneities and microseismic sounding of the medium, Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid 

Earth 44(7):577-592. First Break 21(12).

Gordon, J.C.D, D. Gillespie, L. Rendell, and R. Leaper. 1996. Draft report on playback of ATOC like 

sounds to sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) off the Azores. 19 pp.

Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2004. A 

review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal

37:16-34.

Government of Peru Press (Gobierno del Peru Comunicado). 2012. Press mortality of pelicans and 

dolphins. Internet website: http://redpeia.minam.gob.pe/noticia_131_omunicado-mortandad-depelicanos-y-delfines.html. Accessed November 9, 2013.

Govoni, J.J. 1993. Flux of larval fishes across frontal boundaries: Examples from the Mississippi River 

plume front and the western Gulf Stream front in winter. Bulletin of Marine Science 53(2):538-566.

Graf, R., S.M. Schmalholz, Y. Podladchikov, and E.H. Saenger. 2007. Passive low frequency spectral 

analysis: Exploring a new field in geophysics: World Oil 228:47-52.

Grannis, B.M. 2005. Impacts of mobile fishing gear and a buried fiber optic cable on soft-sediment 

benthic community structure. M.Sc. Thesis, The University of Maine. May 2005. 114 pp.

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. 2011a. Diving in Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. 

Internet website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/visit/diving/welcome.html. Updated July 13, 2010. 

Accessed August 23, 2011.

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. 2011b. Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Internet 

website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/. Updated August 22, 2011. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Green, M.A., R.C. Aller, J.K. Cochran, C. Lee, and J.Y. Aller. 2002. Bioturbation in shelf/slope 

sediments off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina: The use of 234Th, Chl-a, and Br- to evaluate rates of 

particle and solute transport. Deep-Sea Research II 49:4627-4644.

Gregory, M.R. 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings – entanglement, 

ingestion, smothering, hangers on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of 

the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences (2009) 364:2013-2025.

Griffin, D.B. 2002. GIS analysis of inter-nesting habitat, migratory corridors, and resident foraging areas 

of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) along the southeast coast. M.S. thesis, University of 

Charleston, SC. 64 pp.

Grimes, C.B., C.S. Manooch, and G.R. Huntsman. 1982. Reef and rock outcropping fishes of the outer 

continental shelf of North Carolina and South Carolina, and ecological notes on the red porgy and 

vermilion snapper. Bulletin of Marine Science 32(1):277-289.

Grimes, C.B., K.W. Able, and R.S. Jones. 1986. Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps, habitat, 

behavior and community structure in Mid-Atlantic and southern New England waters. Environmental 

Biology of Fishes 15(4):273-292.

Grosslein, M.D. and T.R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish distribution. In: MESA New York Bight Atlas 

Monograph 15. New York Sea Grant Institute. Pp. 182.

Grossman, G.D., M.J. Harris, and J.E. Hightower. 1985. The relationship between tilefish, Lopholatilus

chamaeleonticeps, abundance and sediment composition off Georgia. Fishery Bulletin

83(3):443-447. 
6-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Guerra, A., A.F. González, and F. Rocha. 2004. A review of the records of giant squid in the northeastern Atlantic and severe injuries in Architeuthis dux stranded after acoustic explorations. ICES 

Annual Science Conference, 22-25 September 2004, Vigo, Spain.

Guerra, M., A.M. Thode, S.B. Blackwell, and A.M. Macrander. 2011. Quantifying seismic survey 

reverberation off the Alaskan North Slope. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

130:3046-3058.

Haldorsen, J., J.F. Desler, and D. Chu. 1985. Use of vibrators in a marine seismic source. SEG 

Abstracts 1:509-511.

Hale, L.F., S.J.B. Gulak, and J.K. Carlson. 2009. Characterization of the shark bottom longline fishery, 

2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-586. 23 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/docs/shark_bottom_lonline.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Hall, A. 2002. Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus). In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press. Pp. 522-523. 

Halvorsen, M.B., C.M. Woodley, B.M. Casper, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2011a. Derivation of a 

response severity index model for physiological quantification of fish response to impulsive sound. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129:2435. 

Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, C.M. Woodley, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2011b. Predicting and 

mitigating hydroacoustic impacts on fish from pile installations. National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, in press.

Hamann, M., M.H. Godfrey, J.A. Seminoff, K. Arthur, P.C.R. Barata, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, 

A.C. Broderick, L.M. Campbell, C. Carreras, P. Casale, M. Chaloupka, S.K.F. Chan, M.S. Coyne, 

L.B. Crowder, C.E. Diez, P.H. Dutton, S.P. Epperly, N.N. FitzSimmons, A. Formia, M. Girondot, 

G.C. Hays, I.J. Cheng, Y. Kaska, R. Lewison, J.A. Mortimer, W.J. Nichols, R.D. Reina, K. Shanker, 

J.R. Spotila, J. Tomás, B.P. Wallace, T.M. Work, J. Zbinden, and B.J. Godley. 2010. Global 

research priorities for sea turtles: Informing management and conservation in the 21st century. 

Endangered Species Research 11:245-269. Internet website: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/

HamannM_2010_EndangSpecRes.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Hamazaki, T. 2002. Spatiotemporal prediction models of cetacean habitats in the mid-western North 

Atlantic Ocean (from Cape Hatteras, No. Carolina, USA to Nova Scotia, Canada). Marine Mammal

Science 18(4):920-939.

Hammer, R.M., M.R. Byrnes, D.B. Snyder, T.D. Thibaut, J.L. Baker, S.W. Kelley, J.M. Côté, 

L.M. Lagera, Jr., S.T. Viada, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, and J.D. Wood. 2005. Environmental 

surveys of potential borrow areas on the central east Florida shelf and the environmental implications 

of sand removal for coastal and beach restoration. Prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. in 

cooperation with Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 

and the Florida Geological Survey for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, VA. 306 pp + apps. OCS Study MMS 

2004-037. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4166.pdf. Accessed 

September 6, 2011.

Hansen, L.J., K.D. Mullin, and C.L. Roden. 1994. Preliminary estimates of cetacean abundance in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico from vessel surveys, and of selected cetacean species in the U.S. Atlantic 

Exclusive Economic Zone from vessel surveys. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami 

Laboratory, Miami, FL. Contribution No. MIA-93/94-58.

Hanssen, P. and S. Bussat. 2008. Pitfalls in the analysis of low frequency passive seismic data. First 

Break 26:111-119. 

Hare, J.A. and R.K. Cowen. 1991. Expatriation of Xyrichtys novacula pisces labridae larvae evidence of 

rapid cross-slope exchange. Journal of Marine Research 49(4):801-823.
References Cited 6-27

Hare, J.A., M.P. Fahay, and R.K. Cowen. 2001. Springtime ichthyoplankton of the slope region off the 

north-eastern United States of America: Larval assemblages, relation to hydrography, and 

implications for larval transport. Fisheries Oceanography 10(2):164-192.

Harrington, B.A. 2001. Red Knot (Calidris canutus), The birds of North America online. Ithaca: 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Issue No. 563. Internet website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/563. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Harrington, B.A. and R.I.G Morrison. 1979. Semipalmated sandpiper migration in North America. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 2:83-100, 1979. 8 pp.

Harris, D.E., B. Lelli, G. Jakush, and G. Early. 2001. Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) records from 

the southern Gulf of Maine. Northeast. Nat. 8:427-434.

Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds – An identification guide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 

447 pp.

Harrison, P. 1987. A field guide to seabirds of the world. New York, NY: The Stephan Greene Press, 

Inc. 317 pp.

Hart, K.M. and I. Fujisaki. 2010. Satellite tracking reveals habitat use by juvenile green sea turtles 

Chelonia mydas in the Everglades, Florida, USA. Endangered Species Research 11:221-232.

Hatase, H., K. Omuta, and K. Tsukamoto. 2007. Bottom or midwater: Alternative foraging behaviours 

in adult female loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Zoology 46 (273):46–55. 

Hatch, L., C. Clark, R. Merrick, S. van Parijs, D. Ponirakis, K. Schwehr, M. Thompson, and D. Wiley. 

2008. Characterizing the relative contributions of large vessels to total ocean noise fields: a case 

study using the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental 

Management 42(5):735-752. 

Hatch, L.T., C.W. Clark, S. Van Parijs, A.S. Frankel, and D.W. Ponirakis. 2012. Quantifying loss of 

acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a U. S. National Marine Sanctuary. 

Conservation Biology 26:983-994.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2009. Climate change and marine 

turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137-154. Internet website: http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/ldigirol/

documents/climatechangeandseaturtles.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Hawkes, L.A., M.J. Witt, A.C. Broderick, J.W. Coker, M.S. Coyne, M. Dodd, M.G. Frick, M.H. Godfrey, 

D.B. Griffin, S.R. Murphy, T.M. Murphy, K.L. Williams, and B.J. Godley. 2011. Home on the 

range: Spatial ecology of loggerhead turtles in Atlantic waters of the USA. Diversity and 

Distributions 17:624-640.

Hawkins, A.D. and A.A. Myrberg, Jr. 1983. Hearing and sound communication under water. In: 

Lewis, B., ed. Bioacoustics: A comparative approach. London: Academic Press. Pp. 347-405.

Hays, G.C., V.J. Hobson, J.D. Metcalfe, D. Righton, and D.W. Sims. 2006. Flexible foraging 

movements of leatherback turtles across the North Atlantic Ocean. Ecology 87(10):2647-2656. 

Internet website: http://www.swan.ac.uk/bs/turtle/reprints/Hays_etal_Ecology_2006.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Hazel, J., I.R. Lawler, and M. Hamann. 2009. Diving at the shallow end: Green turtle behavior in 

near-shore foraging habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 371:84-92. 

Internet website: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/HazelJ_2009a_JExpMarBiolEcol.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Hecker, B. 1994. Unusual megafaunal assemblages on the continental slope off Cape Hatteras. 

Deep-Sea Research Part II Topical Studies in Oceanography 41(4-6)(1994 (1995)):809-34. 
6-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Hecker, B., G. Blechschmidt, and P. Gibson. 1980. Epifaunal zonation and community structure in three 

Mid- and North Atlantic canyons. Final report for the Canyon Assessment Study in the Mid-and 

North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. Contract BLM AA5 51-CT8-49. 139 pp. + app. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4436.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 17, 

2011.

Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette, and D.E. Facey. 1997. Diversity of fishes. Madden, MA: Blackwell 

Science. 528 pp. 

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, 

Manoment, MA. 58 pp. Internet website: http://www.lmvjv.org/library/Shorebird_Management_

Manual_1992.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Hewitt, R.P. 1985. Reaction of dolphins to a survey vessel: Effects on census data. Fishery Bulletin

83(2):187-193.

High Energy Seismic Survey. 1999. High energy seismic survey review process and interim operational 

guidelines for marine surveys offshore Southern California. Prepared for The California State Lands 

Commission and the Minerals Management Service Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region. http://

www.boemre.gov/omm/pacific/lease/fullhessrept.pdf. 

Hildebrand, J.A. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 395:5-20. Internet website: http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/

m395p005.pdf. 

Hoese, H.D. 1973. A trawl study of nearshore fishes and invertebrates of the Georgia coast. 

Contributions in Marine Science 17:63-98. 

Hoffman, W. and T.H. Fritts. 1982. Sea turtle distribution along the boundary of the Gulf Stream 

Current off eastern Florida. Herpetologica 38(3):405-409.

Hohl, D. and A. Mateeva. 2006. Passive seismic reflectivity imaging with ocean-bottom cable data: 

76th Annual International Meeting, SEG. Expanded Abstracts:1560-1564.

Holzner, R., P. Eschle, S. Dangel, M. Frehner, C. Narayanan, and D. Lakehal. 2009. Hydrocarbon 

microtremors interpreted as nonlinear oscillations driven by oceanic background waves. 

Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulations 14:160-173.

Hooker, S.K., R.W. Baird, S. Al-Omari, S. Gowans, and H. Whitehead. 2001. Behavioural reactions of 

northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) to biopsy darting and tag attachment 

procedures. Fishery Bulletin 99:303-308.

Hoover-Miller, A., K.R. Parker, and J.J. Burns. 2001. A reassessment of the impact of the Exxon Valdez

oil spill on harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine 

Mammal Science 17(1):111-135.

Houghton, J.D.R., A. Woolmer, and G.C. Hayes. 2000. Sea turtle diving and foraging behaviour around 

the Greek Island of Kefalonia. Journal of Marine Biology U.K. 80:761-762. Internet website: http://

www.swan.ac.uk/bs/turtle/reprints/jon_jmba2000.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Houser, D.S., D.A. Helweg and P.W.B. Moore. 2001. A bandpass filter-bank model of auditory 

sensitivity in the humpback whale. Aquatic Mammals 27(2):82-91.

HydroComp,Inc. 2003. Singing propellers. HydroComp Technical Report 138. 2 pp. Internet website: 

http://hydrocompinc.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/HC138-SingingPropellers.pdf. Accessed 

February 7, 2013.

Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. 2003. The IVI Marine Vibrator Project. 8 pp.

Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. 2010. Marine vibrator technical specifications.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. 73 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. 
References Cited 6-29

International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC). 2002. Marine Seismic Overview. 

http://www.iagc.org/files/306/. 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). 2005. Report of the Ad-hoc Group on the 

Impact of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC). ICES CM 2005/ACE:01.

International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2005. Geotechnical & 

geophysical investigations for offshore and nearshore developments. Compiled by Technical 

Committee 1, International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 

September 2005. 94 pp. Internet website: http://www.issmge.org/images/Attachments/

Investigations%20for%20developments.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2011. 

International Whaling Commission. 2011a. International Whaling Commission statistics. Accessed on 

March 5, 2011. Internet website: http://iwc.int/home. Last updated July 27, 2011. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

International Whaling Commission. 2011b. Ship strikes: Whales and ship strikes. Internet website: 

http://iwc.int/ship-strikes. Accessed October 5, 2011.

Iversen, R.T.B. 1967. Response of the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) to underwater sound. In: 

Tavolga, W.N., ed. Marine bio-acoustics II. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Pp. 105-121.

Iversen, R.T.B. 1969. Auditory thresholds of the scombrid fish Euthynnus affinis, with comments on the 

use of sound in tuna fishing. Proceedings of the FAO Conference on Fish Behaviour in Relation to 

Fishing Techniques and Tactics, October 1967. FAO Fisheries Reports No. 62 Vol. 3. FRm/R62.3.

Jacksonville Port Authority. 2010. JAXPORT 2010 Annual Report. 70 pp. Internet website: http://

www.jaxport.com/sites/default/files/docs/anreport2010.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Jacksonville Port Authority. 2011. About JAXPORT. Internet website: http://www.jaxport.com/about/

about.cfm. Last updated August 11, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2011.

James, M.C., R.A. Myers, and C.A. Ottensmayer. 2005a. Behavior of leatherback sea turtles, 

Dermochelys coriacea, during the migratory cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological 

Sciences 272:1547-1555.

James, M.C., C.A. Ottensmayer, and R.A. Myers. 2005b. Identification of high-use habitat and threats to 

leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: New directions for conservation. Ecology Letters

8:195-201.

Janik, V.M. and P.M. Thompson. 1996. Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response 

to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 12:597-602.

Jasny, M., J. Reynolds, C. Horowitz, and A. Wetzler 2005. Sounding the depths II: The rising toll of 

sonar, shipping, and industrial ocean noise on marine life. National Resources Defense Council. 

November 2005. 76 pp. Internet website: http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sound/sound.pdf. 

Accessed September 2, 2011. 

Jefferson, T.A. 2002. Clymene dolphin. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 234-236.

Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, and M.A. Weber. 1994. Marine mammals of the world. Rome: FAO. 

320 pp.

Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Webber, and R.L. Pitman. 2008. Marine mammals of the world: A 

comprehensive guide to their identification. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 573 pp.

Jensen, F.H., L. Bejder, M. Wahlberg, N.A. Soto, M. Johnson, and P.T. Madsen. 2009. Vessel noise 

effects on delphinid communication. Marine Ecology Progress Series 395:161-175. 

Jerkø, H., I. Turunen-Rise, P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1989. Hearing in the eel (Anguilla anguilla). 

Journal of Comparative Physiology 165:455-459.
6-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Johnson, C.S. 1967. Sound detection thresholds in marine mammals. In: Tavolga, W.N., ed. Marine 

bioacoustics II. Oxford: Pergamon. Pp. 247-260.

Johnson, C.S. 1968. Relation between absolute threshold and duration of tone pulses in the bottlenosed 

porpoise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 43(4):757 763.

Johnson, G., S. Ronen, and T. Noss. 1997. Seismic data acquisition in deep water using a marine 

vibrator source. SEG Expanded Abstracts 16:63.

Johnson, M., P.T. Madsen, W.M.X. Zimmer, M. Aguilar de Soto, and P.L. Tyack. 2004. Beaked whales 

echolocate on prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B (Supplement) 271:S383-S386. 

Johnson, S.A., A.L. Bass, B. Libert, M. Marshall, and D. Fulk. 1999. Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys 

kempi) nesting in Florida. Florida Scientist 62(3/4):194-204. Internet website: http://

ufwildlife.ifas.ufl.edu/pdfs/johnsonetal1999kempsridley.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Johnston, C.E. and C.T. Phillips. 2003. Sound production in sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus and 

S. platorhynchus (Acipenseridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 68:59-64.

Johnston, R.C. 1989. Acoustic tests of Industrial Vehicles International (IVI) marine vibrators. U.S. 

Dept. of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. NRL Memorandum Report 

No. 6399.

Kane, A.S., J. Song, M.B. Halvorsen, D.L. Miller, J.D. Salierno, L.E. Wysocki, D. Zeddies, A.N. Popper. 

2010. Exposure of fish to high intensity sonar does not induce acute pathology. Journal of Fish 

Biology 76:1825-1840.

Kapotas, S., G-A. Tselentis, and N. Martakis. 2003. Case study in NW Greece of passive seismic 

tomography: a new tool for hydrocarbon exploration. First Break 21:37-42.

Kastak, D., R.L. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary 

threshold shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinnipeds. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 106:1142-1148.

Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C. Reichmuth Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary 

threshold shift in pinnipeds: Effects of noise level and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 118:3154-3163.

Kastelein, R.A., D. de Hahn, A.D. Goodson, C. Staal, and N. Vaughan. 1997. The effects of various 

sounds on a harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. The biology of the harbour porpoise. Woerden, 

Netherlands: De Spil Publishers.

Kastelein, R.A., D. de Hahn, N. Vaughan, C. Staal ,and N.M. Schooneman. 2001. The influence of three 

acoustic alarms on the behaviour of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen. 

Marine Environmental Research 52:351-371.

Kastelein, R.A., P. Bunskoek, M. Hagedoorn, W.W.L. Au, and D. Haan. 2002. Audio-gram of a harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) measured with narrow-band frequency modulated signals. Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America 112:334-344.

Kasuya, T. 1986. Fishery-dolphin conflict in the Iki Island area of Japan. In: Beddington, J.R., 

R.J.H. Beverton, and D.M. Lavigne, eds. Marine mammals and fisheries. London: George Allen & 

Unwin. Pp. 253-272. 

Katona, S.K., J.A. Beard, P.E. Girton, and F. Wenzel. 1988. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) from the Bay 

of Fundy to the Equator, including the Gulf of Mexico. Rit. Fiskideild. 9:205-224.

Katona, S.K., V. Rough and D.T. Richardson. 1993. A field guide to whales, porpoises, and seals from 

Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 316 pp.

Kells, V and K.E. Carpenter. 2011. A field guide to coastal fishes from Maine to Texas. Baltimore, MD: 

Johns Hopkins University Press. 448 pp.
References Cited 6-31

Kendall, M.S., L.J. Bauer, and C.F.G. Jeffrey. 2007. Characterization of the benthos, marine debris and 

bottom fish at Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Draft. Prepared by National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) Biogeography Team in cooperation with the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program. Silver Spring, MD. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS 

NCCOS 50. 82 pp. + apps. Internet website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/science/publications/pdfs/i17.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Kendall, M.S., L.J. Bauer, and C.F.G. Jeffrey. 2009. Influence of hard bottom morphology on fish 

assemblages of the continental shelf off Georgia, southeastern USA. Bulletin of Marine Science

84(3):265-286. 

Kenney, R.D. 2002. North Atlantic, North Pacific, and southern right whales. In: Perrin, W.F., 

B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press. Pp. 806-813. 

Kenney, R.D., M.A.M. Hyman, R.E. Owen, G.P. Scott, and H.E. Winn. 1986. Estimation of prey 

densities required by western North Atlantic right whales. Marine Mammal Science 2:1-13.

Kenney, R.D., H.E. Winn, and M.C. Macaulay. 1995. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 

1979-1989: Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Cont. Shelf Res. 15:385-414.

Ketten, D.R. 2000. Cetacean ears. In: Au, W.W.L., A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing by 

whales and dolphins. New York, NY: Springer. Pp. 43-108.

Ketten, D.R. 2008. Underwater ears and the physiology of impacts: Comparative liability for hearing 

loss in sea turtles, birds, and mammals. Bioacoustics 17:312-315.

Khan, C., T.V.N. Cole, P. Duley, A.H. Glass, M. Niemeyer, and C. Christman. 2009. North Atlantic 

Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) 

2008 Results Summary. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference 

Document 09-05. 7 pp.

Khan, C., T. Cole, P. Duley, A. Glass, and J. Gatzke. 2010. North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey

(NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 10-07. 7 pp.

Kildow, J.T., C. Colgan, and J. Scorse. 2009. State of the U.S. ocean and coastal economies. National 

Ocean Economics Program.

King, J.E. 1983. Seals of the world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 240 pp.

Knowlton, A.R., C.W. Clark, and S.D. Kraus. 1991. Sounds recorded in the presence of sei whales, 

Balaenoptera borealis. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals. P. 40.

Knowlton, A.B., J.B. Ring, and B. Russell. 2002. Right whale sightings and survey effort in the MidAtlantic region: Migratory corridor, time frame, and proximity to port entrances. A report submitted 

to the NMFS Right Whale Ship Strike Working Group. July 2002. 

Koenig, C.C., F.C. Coleman, C.B. Grimes, G.R. Fitzhugh, K.M. Scanlon, C.T. Gledhill, and M. Grace. 

2000. Protection of fish spawning habitat for the conservation of warm-temperate reef- fish fisheries 

of shelf-edge reefs of Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):593-616. 

Kovacs, K.M. 2002. Hooded seal (Crystophora cristata). In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and 

J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press. Pp. 580-582.

Kraus, S.D., A.J. Read, A Solow, K. Baldwin, T. Spradlin, E. Anderson, and J. Williamson. 1997. 

Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature 388:525.
6-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Kushland, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, 

N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, 

R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. 

84 pp.

Laake, J. L., P.J. Gearin, M.E. Gosho, and R.L. DeLong. 1997. Evaluation of effectiveness of pingers to 

reduce incidental entanglement of harbor porpoise in a set gillnet fishery. In: Hill, P.S. and 

D.P. DeMaster, eds. MMPA and ESA implementation program, 1996. AFSC Processed Report

97-10. Pp. 75-81. 

Laake, J., D. Rugh, and L. Baraff. 1998. Observations of harbor porpoise in the vicinity of acoustic 

alarms on a set gill net. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-84.

Lacroix, D.L., R.B. Lanctot, J.A. Reed, and T.L. McDonald. 2003. Effect of underwater seismic surveys 

on molting male long-tailed ducks in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

81:1862-1875.

Ladich, F. and A.N. Popper. 2004. Parallel evolution in fish hearing organs. In: Manley, G.A., 

A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Evolution of the vertebrate auditory system, Springer handbook of 

auditory research. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 95-127.

Laist, D. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a 

comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and 

D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris: Sources, impacts, and solutions. Springer, New York. Pp. 99-139.

Laist, D.W. 1987. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine 

environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:319-326.

Laist, D.W. 1996. Marine debris entanglement and ghost fishing: A cryptic and significant type of 

bycatch. In: Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. 96-03, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 

AK. Pp. 33-39.

Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a 

comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and 

D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris, sources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 

Pp. 99-139.

Laist, D.W., J.M. Coe, and K.J. O’Hara. 1999. Marine debris pollution. In: Twiss, J.R., Jr. and 

R.R. Reeves, eds. Conservation and management of marine mammals. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institute Press. Pp. 342-366.

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships 

and whales. Marine Mammal Science 17:35-75.

Laney, R.W., J.E. Hightower, B.R. Versak, M.F. Mangold, W.W. Cole Jr., and S.E. Winslow. 2007. 

Distribution, habitat use, and size of Atlantic sturgeon captured during cooperative winter tagging 

cruises, 1988-2006. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56:167-182. Internet website: http://

etd.lib.ncsu.edu/publications/bitstream/1840.2/1959/1/Laney_etal_2007.pdf. Accessed August 12, 

2011.

Lange, A.M.T. and M.P. Sissenwine. 1980. Biological considerations relevant to the management of 

squid (Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus) of the northwest Atlantic. Marine Fisheries Review

42(7-8):23-38. Internet website: http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr427-8/mfr427-84.pdf. Accessed 

August 22, 2011.

Lavender, A.L., S.M. Bartol, and I.K. Bartol. 2011. A two-method approach for investigating the 

hearing capabilities of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Proceedings of 31st Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, San Diego, CA. Internet website: http://

iconferences.seaturtle.org/preview.shtml?event_id=18&abstract_id=4003. Accessed August 19, 

2011.
References Cited 6-33

Lavender, A.L., S.M. Bartol, and I.K. Bartol. 2012. Hearing capabilities of loggerhead sea turtles 

(Caretta caretta) throughout ontogeny. In: Popper, A.N. and A. Hawkins, eds. The effects of noise 

on aquatic life. New York, NY: Springer. Pp. 89-92. 

Lavigne, D.M. 2002. Harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus). In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and 

J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press. Pp. 560-562.

Lavigne, D.M. and K.M. Kovacs. 1988. Harps and hoods ice breeding seals of the Northwest Atlantic. 

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo Press. 174 pp.

Le Prell, G., D. Henderson, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. 2011. Noise-induced hearing loss: 

Scientific advances. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. 

Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn. 1976. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the western 

North Atlantic. A guide to their identification. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS Circ. 396. 176 pp.

Leatherwood, S., F.T. Awbrey, and J.A. Thomas. 1982. Minke whale response to a transiting survey 

vessel. Report of the International Whaling Commission 32:795-805.

Lee, D.S. 1984. Petrels and storm-petrels in North Carolina’s offshore waters, including species 

previously unrecorded for North America. American Birds 38(2):151-163. Internet website: 

http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/nab/v038n02/p00151-p00163.pdf. Accessed 

August 22, 2011.

Lee, D.S. 1987. December records of seabirds off North Carolina. Wilson Bulletin 99:116-121.

Lee, R.F. and J.W. Anderson. 2005. Significance of cytochrome P450 system responses and levels of 

bile fluorescent aromatic compounds in marine wildlife following oil spills. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 50(7):705-723.

Lee, T.N., L.P. Atkinson, and R. Legeckis. 1981. Observations of a Gulf Stream frontal eddy on the 

Georgia continental shelf, April 1977. Deep Sea Research Part A 28:347-348.

Leighton, F.A. 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. Environ. Rev. 1:92-103.

Lenhardt, M.L., R.C. Klinger, and J.A. Musick. 1985. Marine turtle middle-ear anatomy. Journal of

Auditory Research 25:66-72. Internet website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3836997. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

Lesage, V. and M.O. Hammill. 2001. The status of the grey seal, Halichoerus grypus, in the Northwest 

Atlantic. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 115(4):653-662.

Lesage, V., C. Barrette, and M.C.S. Kingsley. 1999. The effect of noise from an outboard motor and a 

ferry on the vocal activity of beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada. 

In: Abstracts, 10th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Galveston, TX, 

November 1993. P. 70. 

Levin, P.S. and M.E. Hay. 1996. Responses of temperate reef fishes to alterations in algal structure and 

species composition. Marine Ecology Progress Series 134(1-3)(1996):37-47. Internet website: 

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/134/m134p037.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2012. 

LGL Limited environmental research associates. 2011. Environmental assessment of a marine 

geophysical survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the central-western Bering Sea, August 2011. 

8 April 2011. P. 191. 

LGL Limited environmental research associates and Marine Acoustics Inc. 2011. Environmental 

assessment of marine vibroseis. April 2011. P. 207

Limpus, C.J. and J.D. Miller. 2008. Australian Hawksbill Turtle Population Dynamics Project. The 

Queensland Government. Environmental Protection Agency. 130 pp. Internet website: http://

www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Global/99.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.
6-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Lindeman, K.C., R. Pugliese, G.T. Waugh, and J.S. Ault. 2000. Developmental patterns within a 

multispecies reef fishery: Management applications for essential fish habitats and protected areas. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):929-956.

Ljungblad, D.K., P.D. Scoggins, and W.G. Gilmartin. 1982. Auditory thresholds of a captive Eastern 

Pacific bottle-nosed dolphin, Tursiops spp. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

72:1726-1729.

Lobel, P.S. 2009. Underwater acoustic ecology: Boat noises and fish behavior. Proceedings of the 

American Academy of Underwater Sciences 28th Symposium, Dauphin Island, AL. Pp. 31-42.

Loesch, J.G. and W.A. Lund, Jr. 1977. A contribution to the life history of the blueback herring Alosa 

aestivalis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106(6):583-589.

Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. Paper 

presented at the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual Science 

Conference. ICES CM B 40:1-9.

Løkkeborg, S. and A.V. Soldal. 1993. The influence of seismic exploration with airguns on cod 

(Gadus morhua) behaviour and catch rates. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 196:62-67.

Lombarte, A. and A.N. Popper. 1994. Quantitative analyses of postembryonic hair cell addition in the 

otolithic endorgans of the inner ear of the European hake, Merluccius merluccius (Gadiformes, 

Teleostei). Journal of Comparative Neurology 345:419-428.

Lombarte, A., H.Y. Yan, A.N. Popper, J.C. Chang, and C. Platt. 1993. Damage and regeneration of hair 

cell ciliary bundles in a fish ear following treatment with gentamicin. Hearing Research 66:166-174.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects 

within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental

Management 19(1):81-97. 

Louis Berger Group, Inc. 1999. Use of Federal offshore sand resources for beach and coastal restoration 

in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Leasing Division, Sand and Gravel Unit, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 99-0036. 

Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Non-Energy-Minerals/1999-036.aspx. Accessed 

September 6, 2011.

Love, J.W. and P.D. Chase. 2007. Marine fish diversity and composition in the Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Bights. Southeastern Naturalist 6(4)(2007):705-14. 

Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findlay, R.M. Moate, J.R. Nedwell, and M.A. Pegg. 2005. The inner ear 

morphology and hearing abilities of the Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the Lake Sturgeon 

(Acipenser fulvescens). Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 142:286-289. 

Lu, Z. and Z. Xu. 2009. Effects of saccular otolith removal on hearing sensitivity of the sleeper goby 

(Dormitator latifrons). Journal of Comparative Physiology 188:595-602.

Luczkovich, J.J., D.A. Mann, and R.A. Rountree. 2008. Passive acoustics as a tool in fisheries science. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:533-541.

Lutcavage, M. and P.L. Lutz. 1986. Metabolic rate and food energy requirements of the leatherback sea 

turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. Copeia 1986. Pp. 796-798.

Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic 

effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:417-422.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle 

survival. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press. Pp. 387-409.

Luther, D.A. and R.H. Wiley. 2009. Production and perception of communicatory signals in a noisy 

environment. Biology Letters 5:183-187.
References Cited 6-35

Lytle, W.M. and F.R. Holdcamper. 1975. Merchant steam vessels of the United States 1790–1868 (The

Lytle-Holdcamper List). The Steamship Historical Society of America, Staten Island, NY. 

MacIntyre, I.G. 2003. A classic marginal coral environment: Tropical coral patches off North Carolina, 

USA. Coral Reefs 22(4):474.

Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: Problems with root mean square sound pressure levels 

for transients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117(6):3952-3957.

Madsen, P.T., B Møhl, K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behavior during 

exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals 28:231-240. 

Madsen, P.T., I. Kerr, and R. Payne. 2004. Source parameter estimates of echolocation clicks from wild 

pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuata). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(4,

Pt. 1):1909-1912.

Mahon, R., S.K. Brown, K.C.T. Zwanenburg, D.B. Atkinson, K.B. Buja, L. Claflin, G.D. Howell, 

M.E. Monaco, R.N. O’Boyle, and M. Sinclair. 1998. Assemblages and biogeography of demersal 

fishes of the east coast of North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

55:1704-1738.

Makowski, C., J.A. Seminof, and M. Salmon. 2006. Home range and habitat use of juvenile Atlantic 

green turtles (Chelonia mydas, L.) on shallow reef habitats in Palm Beach, Florida, USA. Mar. Biol.

148:1167-1179.

Malahoff, A., R.W. Embley, R.B. Perry, and C. Fefe. 1980. Submarine mass-wasting of sediments on 

the continental slope and upper rise south of Baltimore Canyon. Earth and Planetary Science Letters

49(1):1-7.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1983. Investigations of the potential 

effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. 

Prepared for U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. Bolt Beranek 

and Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA. BBN Rep. 5366. NTIS PB86-174174.

Malme, C. I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential 

effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. 

Phase II: January 1984 migration. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service. Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA: BBN Report No. 5586. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/1/1086.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects 

of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. BBN 

Laboratories Inc., Cambridge, MA, BBN Report 5851. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Anchorage, AK. OCS Study MMS 85-0019.

Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses to 

controlled industrial noise exposure, pp. 55-73. In: W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jefferies, J.L. Imm, and 

S.D. Treacy, eds. Vol. 2. Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions. University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 111 pp.

Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, and A.N. Popper. 1997. A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature 389:341. 

Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza, and A.N. Popper. 2001. Ultrasound detection by 

clupeiform fishes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109:3048-3054.

Manooch, C.S., III and D.L. Mason. 1984. Comparative food habits of yellowfin tuna, Thunnus 

albacares, and blackfin tuna, Thunnus atlanticus, collected along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts 

of the United States. Brimleyana 11:33-52.

Mansfield, A.W. 1966. The grey seal in eastern Canadian waters. Can. Audubon Mag. 28:161-166.

Mansfield, A.W. 1967. Distribution of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, in Canadian Arctic 

waters. Journal of Mammalogy 48(2):249-257.
6-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Mansfield, K.L., V.S. Saba, J.A. Keinath, and J.A. Musick. 2009. Satellite tracking reveals a dichotomy 

in migration strategies among juvenile loggerhead turtles in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Biology

156(12):2555-2570.

Marancik, K.E., L. Clough, and J.A. Hare. 2005. Cross-shelf and seasonal variation in larval fish 

assemblages on the southeast U.S. continental shelf off the coast of Georgia. Fishery Bulletin

103:108-129.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals. 

Report to the Marine Mammal Commission. 1 February 2006. Internet website: 

http://www.mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/soundFACAreport.pdf. 136 pp.

Markle, D.F. and J.A. Musick. 1974. Benthic slope fishes found at 900 meter depth along a transect in 

the western north Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 26(3):225-33. 

Márquez-M, R. 1990. FAO species catalog. Vol. 11: Sea turtles of the world. An annotated and 

illustrated catalogue of sea turtle species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vol. 11. 

Rome: FAO. 81 pp.

Márquez-M, R. 2001. Status and distribution of the Kemp’s ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, in the 

wider Caribbean region. In: Eckert, K.L. and F.A. Abreu Grobois, eds. Proceedings of the Regional 

Meeting: Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region: A Dialogue for Effective 

Regional Management. Santo Domingo, 16-18 November 1999. WIDECAST, IUCN-MTSG, WWF, 

and UNEP-CEP. Pp. 46-51. Internet website: http://www.widecast.org/Resources/Docs/

Biology_Kemps_DR_Proc.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Martin, B., J. MacDonnell, N. Chorney, and D. Zeddies. 2012. Sound Source Verification of Fugro 

Geotechnical Sources (Appendix A). In: ESS Group, Inc. Renewal application for incidental 

harassment authorization for the non-lethal taking of marine mammals resulting from preconstruction high resolution geophysical survey. For Cape Wind Associates, LLC. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/capewind_iha_application_renewal.pdf. Accessed 

October 23, 2013. 

Marx, R.F. 1971. Shipwrecks of the western hemisphere. New York, NY: World Publishing Company.

Marx, R.F. 1987. Shipwrecks in the Americas. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. 2011. Artificial reef initiative and committee. Internet website: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/reefs/. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Mashburn, K.L. and S. Atkinson. 2008. Variability in leptin and adrenal response in juvenile Steller sea 

lions (Eumetopias jubatus) to adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) in different seasons. General 

and Comparative Endocrinology 155:352-358.

Mate, B.M., S.L. Nieukirk, and S.D. Kraus. 1997. Satellite-monitored movements of the northern right 

whale. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1393-1405.

Mather, I.R. and G.P. Watts, Jr. 2002. Geographic information systems. In: Ruppé, C.V. and 

J.F. Barstad, eds. International handbook of underwater archaeology. The Plenum Series in 

Underwater Archaeology. College Station, TX: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Matthews, T. and B. Cameron, Jr. 2010. OCS regulatory framework for the Gulf of Mexico region. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Report MMS 2010-019. 24 pp. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/BOEMNewsroom/Library/Publications/2010/2010-019.aspx. Updated May 2010. Accessed August 4, 

2011.

Maurer, D. and J.C. Tinsman. 1980. Demersal fish in Delaware coastal waters. Journal of Natural 

History 14(1):65-77.

Mayo, C.A. and M.K. Marx. 1990. Surface foraging behaviour of the North Atlantic right whale, 

Eubalaena glacialis, and associated zooplankton characteristics. Canadian Journal of Zoology

68:2214-2220.
References Cited 6-37

McAlpine, D.F. 2002. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. 

Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Pp. 1007-1009. 

McAlpine, D.F., P.T. Stevick, L.D. Murison, and S.D. Turnbull. 1999. Extralimital records of hooded 

seals (Cystophora cristata) from the Bay of Fundy and northern Gulf of Maine. Northeastern 

Naturalist 6:225-230.

McBride, R.A. and T.F. Moslow. 1991. Origin, evolution, and distribution of shoreface sand ridges, 

Atlantic inner shelf, USA. Marine Geology 97:57-85.

McCauley, R.D. 1994. Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia – 

Part 2. Seismic surveys. The findings of an independent scientific review on behalf of the Australian 

Petroleum Exploration Association (APEA) and Energy Research and Development Corporation 

(ERDC). January 1994.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, 

A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals 

and effects of air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Report from 

Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, for 

Australian Petroleum Production Association, Sydney, NSW.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, 

A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental 

implications. APPEA Journal 40:692-708. 

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish 

ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(1):638-642.

McClellan, C.M. and A.J. Read. 2009. Confronting the gauntlet: Understanding incidental capture of 

green turtles through finescale movement studies. Endangered Species Research 10:165-179. 

Internet website: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2010/10/n010p165.pdf. Accessed August 19,

2011

McDonald, M.A. and C.G. Fox. 1999. Passive acoustic methods applied to fin whale population density 

estimation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105(9):2643-2651.

McDonald, M.A., and S.E. Moore. 2002. Calls recorded from North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena 

japonica) in the eastern Bering Sea. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4:261-266.

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor 

array in the northeast Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98(2):712-721. Internet 

website: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sx2b1cj;jsessionid=13E40342F9C3F7C5419BB401

AF9ACE56. Accessed August 5, 2011.

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, S.M. Wiggins, D. Thiele, D. Glasgow, and S.E. Moore. 2005. Sei 

whale sounds recorded in the Antarctic. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

118(6):3941-3945.

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.M. Wiggins. 2006. Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in 

the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 120(2):711-718. Internet website: http://cetus.ucsd.edu/Publications/Publications/

McDonaldJASA2006.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012. 

McKenna, M.F., D. Ross, S.M. Wiggins, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2012. Underwater radiated noise from 

modern commercial ships. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131(1):92-103.

McNally, J. 2010. Massive North Atlantic garbage patch mapped. Wired Science. Internet website: 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/atlantic-plastic/. Accessed October 31, 2013.
6-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

McWilliams, S.R. and W.H. Karasov. 2005. Migration takes guts; Digestive physiology of migratory 

birds and its ecological significance. In: Greenberg, R. and P.P. Marra, eds. Birds of two worlds: 

The ecology and evolution of migration. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Pp. 67-78. 

Mead, J.G. 2002. Beaked whales, overview. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 81-84

Meister, H.S., D.M. Wyanski, J.K. Loefer, S.W. Ross, A.M. Quattrini, and K.J. Sulak. 2005. Further 

evidence of the invasion and establishment of Pterois volitans (Teleostei: Scorpaenidae) along the 

Atlantic coast of the United States. Southeastern Naturalist 4:193-206.

Mellinger, D.K. and C.W. Clark. 2003. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) sounds from the North 

Atlantic. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114(2):1108-1119. 

Mellinger, D.K. and S.L. Heimlich. 2013. Introduction to the special issue on methods for marine 

mammal passive acoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(3), Pt.2, September 2013.

Mellinger, D.K., K.M. Stafford, S.E. Moore, R.P. Dziak, and H. Matumoto. 2007. An overview of fixed 

passive acoustic observation methods for cetaceans. Oceanography 20(4):36-45.

Mellinger, D.K., S.L. Nieukirk, H. Matsumoto, S.L. Heimlich, R.P. Dziak, J. Haxel, M. Fowler, 

C. Meinig, and H.V. Miller. 2007. Seasonal occurrence of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) at two sites on the Scotian Shelf. Marine Mammal Science 23(4):856-867.

Mellinger, D.K., S.L. Nieukirk, K. Klinck, H. Klinck, R.P. Dziak, P.J. Clapham, and B. Brandsdóttir. 

2011. Confirmation of right whales near a nineteenth-century whaling ground east if southern 

Greenland. Biology Letters 7:411-413.

Meyer, M., R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper. 2010. Frequency tuning and intensity coding of sound in the 

auditory periphery of the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens. Journal of Experimental Biology

213:1567-1578.

Michel, J., ed. 2013. South Atlantic Information Resources: Data Search and Literature Synthesis. U.S. 

Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2013-01157. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5296.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2013.

Michel, J., A.C. Bejarano, C.H. Peterson, and C. Voss. 2013. Review of biological and biophysical 

impacts from dredging and handling of offshore sand. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2013-0119. 258 pp.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998a. Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and 

Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. Includes environmental impact assessment and regulatory 

impact review. In cooperation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, the New England Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council. Pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Award No. 

NA57FC0002. 398 pp. + apps.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998b. Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean 

Quahog Fishery Management Plan. Includes draft environmental assessment and draft regulatory 

impact review. In cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and New England Fishery 

Management Council. Pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Award No. 

NA57FC0002. 173 pp. + apps.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998c. Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management 

Plan. Includes environmental assessment and regulatory impact review, Volume I. In cooperation 

with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, New 

England Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

Pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Award No. NA57FC0002.
References Cited 6-39

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2008a. Amendment 1 to the Tilefish Fishery Management 

Plan, Volume I. Includes final environmental impact statement, preliminary regulatory economic 

evaluation and essential fish habitat assessment. In cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Award No. NA57FC0002. 491 pp.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2008b. Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, Volume I. Includes final environmental impact statement, 

preliminary regulatory economic evaluation and essential fish habitat assessment. In cooperation 

with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Award 

No. NA57FC0002. 461 pp.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and New England Fishery Management Council. 1999. 

Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan. Includes final environmental impact statement and 

regulatory impact review. In cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Pursuant to 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Award No. NA57FC0002.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and New England Fishery Management Council. 2007. 

Northeast region standardized bycatch reporting methodology: An omnibus amendment to the 

Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regional Fishery Management 

Councils. June 2007. 642 pp. Internet website: http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/SBRM_EA-RIRIRFA.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Mignucci-Giannoni, A.A. and D.K. Odell. 2001. Tropical and subtropical records of hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata) dispel the myth of extant Caribbean monk seals (Monachus tropicalis). Carib. 

Bull. Mar. Sci. 68:47-58.

Miksis-Olds, J.L. and P.L. Tyack. 2009. Manatee (Trichechus manatus) vocalization usage in relation to 

environmental noise levels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(3):1806-1815.

Miller, G.C. and W.J. Richards. 1980. Reef fish habitat faunal assemblages and factors determining 

distributions in the South Atlantic Bight. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Research 

Institute 32:114-130.

Miller, J.M., J.P. Reed, and L.J. Pietrafesa. 1984. Patterns, mechanisms, and approaches to the study of 

migrations of estuarine-dependent fish larvae and juveniles. In: McCleave, J.D., G.P. Arnold, 

J.J. Dodson, and W.H. Neill, eds. Mechanisms of migration in fishes. New York, NY: Plenum 

Press. Pp. 209-225.

Miller, M.H., J. Carlson, P. Cooper, D. Kobayashi, M. Nammack, and J. Wilson. 2013. Status review 

report: Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Office of Protected Resources. 131 pp.

Miller, P.J.O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels, and P.L. Tyack. 2000. Whale songs lengthen in response to 

sonar. Nature 405:903. 

Miller, P.J.O., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, and P.L. Tyack. 2009. Using at-sea 

experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Deep-Sea Research I 56:1168-1181.

Milton, S., P. Lutz, and G. Shigenaka. 2003. Oil toxicity and impact on sea turtles. In: Oil and sea 

turtles: Biology, planning, and response. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration. 

Reprinted July 2010. Pp. 35-47. Internet website: http://archive.orr.noaa.gov/book_shelf/

35_turtle_complete.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012. 

Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M.L. Lenhardt, and R. George. 1995. Evaluation 

of seismic sources for repelling sea turtles from hopper dredges. In: L.Z. Hales, ed. Sea Turtle 

Research Program: Summary Report. Technical Report CERC-95. Pp. 90-93.

Mok, H.K. and R.G. Gilmore. 1983. Analysis of sound production in estuarine aggregations of Pogonias 

cromis, Bairdiella chrysoura, and Cynoscion nebulosus (Sciaenidae). Bulletin of the Institute 

Zoology, Sinica 22:157-186.
6-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Moncada, F., F.A. Abreu-Grobois, D. Bagley, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, J. A. Camiñas, L. Ehrhart, 

A. Muhlia-Melo, G. Nodarse, B.A. Schroeder, J. Zurita, and L.A. Hawkes. 2010. Movement patterns 

of loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in Cuban waters inferred from flipper tag recaptures. 

Endangered Species Research 11:61-68. Internet website: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2010/

11/n011p061.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. 2011. Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. Internet website: 

http://monitor.noaa.gov/. Updated March 16, 2011. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Montevecchi, W.A. 2006. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. In: Rich, C. and T. Loncore, 

eds. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

Pp. 94-113.

Montevecchi, W.A., F.K. Wiese, G. Davoren, A.W. Diamond, F. Huettmann, and J. Linke. 1999. 

Seabird attraction to offshore platforms and seabird monitoring from offshore support vessels and 

other ships: Literature review and monitoring designs. Report prepared for Canadian Association of 

Petroleum Producers, Calgary, AB.

Mooney, T.A., R.T. Hanlon, J.Christensen-Dalsgaard, P.T. Madsen, D.R. Ketten, and P.E. Nachtigall. 

2010. Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: 

Sensitiviy to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure. Journal of Experimental Biology

213:3748-3759.

Moore, P.W.B. and D.A. Pawloski. 1990. Investigations on the control of echolocation pulses in the 

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). In: Thomas, J.A. and R.A. Kastelein, eds. Sensory abilities of 

cetaceans – Laboratory and field evidence. New York, NY: Plenum. Pp. 305-316. 

Moore, S.E., M.E. Dahlheim, K.M. Stafford, C.G. Fox, H.W. Braham, M.A. McDonald, and 

J. Thomason. 1999. Acoustic and visual detection of large whales in the eastern north Pacific Ocean. 

U.S. Dept of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-107. 27 pp.

Morano, J.L., A.N. Rice, J.T. Tielens, B.J. Estabrook, A. Murray, B. Roberts, and C.W. Clark. 2012. 

Year-round presence of right whales in Massachusetts Bay: Acoustically monitoring for a critically 

endangered marine mammal in a highly urbanized migration corridor. Conservation Biology 

26:698-707.

Morgan, A., P.W. Cooper, T. Curtis, and G.H. Burgess. 2009. An overview of the United States east 

coast bottom longline shark fishery, 1994-2003. Marine Fisheries Review 71(1):23-38. Internet 

website: http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr711/mfr7112.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Morgan, S.G., C.S. Manooch, III, D.L. Mason, and J.W. Goy. 1985. Pelagic fish predation on 

Ceratapsis, a rare larval genus of oceanic penaeoids. Bulletin of Marine Science 36(2):249-259.

Morrison, R.I.G., Y. Aubry, R.W. Butler, G.W. Beyersbergen, G.M. Donaldson, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, 

P.W. Hicklin, V.H. Johnston, and R.K Ross. 2001a. Declines in North American shorebird 

populations. Wader Study Group Bulletin 94:34-38.

Morrison, R.I.G., R.E. Gill, Jr., B.A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

S.M. Haig. 2001b. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occasional Paper No. 104, 

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 64 pp.

Morrison, R.I.G., R.K. Ross, and L.J. Niles. 2004. Declines in wintering populations of Red Knots in 

southern South America. The Condor 106(1):60-70. University of California Press on behalf of the 

Cooper Ornithological Society.

Morrison, R.I.G, B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen, S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

B.A. Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group 

Bulletin 111:67-85.

Morse, W.W., M.P. Fahay, and W.G. Smith. 1987. MARMAP surveys of the continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia (1977-1984). Atlas No. 2. Annual 

distribution patterns of fish larvae. NOAA Technical Memo NOAA-TM-NMFS-F/NEC-47. 
References Cited 6-41

Morton, A.B. and H.K. Symonds. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in 

British Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:71-80.

Mos, L., G.A. Cooper, K. Serven, M. Cameron, and B.F. Koop. 2008. Effects of diesel on survival, 

growth, and gene expresseion in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fry. Environmental Science & 

Technology 42(7):2656-2662.

Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in 

the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

124:225-234.

Moser, M.L., P.J. Auster, and J.B. Bichy. 1998. Effects of mat morphology on large 

Sargassum-associated fishes: Observations from a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and 

free-floating video camcorders. Environmental Biology of Fishes 51:391-398.

Mrosovsky, N. 1972. Spectographs of the sounds of leatherback turtles. Herpetologica 29(3):256-258.

Muckelroy, K. 1978. Maritime archaeology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 

Mullin, K.D. and G.L. Fulling. 2003. Abundance of cetaceans in the southern U.S. north Atlantic Ocean 

during summer 1998. Fishery Bulletin 101:603-613. Internet website: http://fishbull.noaa.gov/1013/

11mullin.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Multipurpose Marine Cadastre. 2011. National viewer and data registry. Internet website: http://

www.marinecadastre.gov/default.aspx. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Muscik. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 324 pp.

Musick, J.A. 1988. The sea turtles of Virginia with notes on identification and natural history. Second 

revised edition. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Educational 

Series No. 24, June 1988. Internet website: http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/EdSeries24.pdf?svr=

www. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. In: 

Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Pp. 137-

163.

Myrberg, A.A. 2001. The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes

60(1-3):31-46. 

Myrberg, A.A., Jr. and L.A. Fuiman. 2002. The sensory world of coral reef fishes. In: Sale, P.F., ed. 

Coral reef fishes: Dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. Pp. 123-148.

Myrberg, A.A., Jr. and J.Y. Spires. 1980. Hearing in damselfishes: An analysis of signal detection 

among closely related species. Journal of Comparative Physiology 140:135-144. 

Myrberg, A.A., Jr., C.R. Gordon, and A.P. Klimley. 1976. Attraction of free ranging sharks by low 

frequency sound, with comments on its biological significance. In: Schuijf, A. and A.D. Hawkins, 

eds. Sound reception in fish. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 205-228. 

Nash, P. and A.V. Strudley. 2010. Fibre optic receivers and their effects on source requirements, 

pp. 27-28. In: Weilgart, L.S., ed. Report of the Workshop on Alternative Technologies to Seismic 

Airgun Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration and their Potential for Reducing Impacts on Marine 

Mammals, Monterey, California, 31 August - 1 September 2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, 

Auf der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. 29 pp. Internet website: http://www.sound-in-thesea.org/download/AirgunAlt2010_en.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

National Audubon Society. 2011. Criteria overview. Internet website: http://web4.audubon.org/bird/

iba/criteria.html. Updated November 2010. Accessed August 22, 2011.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2011. Internet website: http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/. 

Accessed August 23, 2011.
6-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

National Estuary Program. 2011. Water: Estuaries and coastal watersheds. Internet website: http://

water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/index.cfm. Last updated June 15, 2011. Accessed August 23, 2011.

National Marine Protected Areas Center. 2008. Framework for the national system of Marine Protected 

Areas of the United States of America. Internet website: http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/

finalframework_full.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

National Ocean Economics Program. 2004. Ocean Economy Search Results. Internet website: http://

www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp. Accessed August 23, 2011.

National Ocean Economics Program. 2008. Ocean Economy Search Results. Internet website: http://

www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp. Accessed August 23, 2011.

National Oceanographic Partnership Program. 2011. Topic 3: Exploration and research of Mid-Atlantic 

deepwater hard bottom habitats and shipwrecks with emphasis on canyons and coral communities. 

Internet website: http://www.nopp.org/funded-projects/fy2010-projects/topic-3-exploration-andresearch-of-mid-atlantic-deepwater-hard-bottom-habitats-and-shipwrecks-with-emphasis-on-canyonsand-coral-communities/. Accessed August 17, 2011.

National Park Service. 2011. Internet website: http://www.nps.gov/findapark/index.htm. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

National Research Council. 1983. Drilling discharges in the marine environment. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 180 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/

ESPIS/1/1266.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

National Research Council. 2003a. Ocean noise and marine mammals. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. 151 pp. + app. Internet website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=

0309085365. Accessed September 2, 2011. 

National Research Council. 2003b. Cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on 

Alaska’s North Slope. NRC Committee on Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas 

Activities on Alaska’s North Slope. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 288 pp.

National Research Council. 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise: Determining when 

noise causes biologically significant effects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

99 pp. + apps. Internet website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11147&page=1. 

Accessed September 6, 2011.

National Resources Defense Council. 2009. Petition to list Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) as an endangered species, or to list specified Atlantic sturgeon DPSs as threatened and 

endangered species, and to designate critical habitat. Prepared by National Resources Defense 

Council, New York, NY. 68 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/

petition_atlanticsturgeon_nrdc.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

National Sawfish Encounter Database. 2011. Florida Museum of Natural History, Ichthyology. Internet 

website: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/sawfish/sawfishdatabase.html. Accessed August 23, 

2011.

National Science Foundation and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for 

Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey. June 2011. 514 pp. Internet website: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/

usgs-nsf-marine-seismic-research/nsf-usgs-final-eis-oeis_3june2011.pdf. Accessed September 2, 

2011. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Farmland Protection Policy Act. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/?ss=16&navtype=SubNavigation&cid=null&navid=

100170180000000&pnavid=100170000000000&position=SubNavigation&ttype=main&pname=

Farmland%20Protection%20Policy%20Act%20|%20NRCS. Accessed August 24, 2011.
References Cited 6-43

NatureServe, InfoNatura. 2010. NatureServe, InfoNatura: An online conservation and educational 

resource on the animals and eco-systems of Latin America and the Caribbean. NatureServe, 

Arlington, VA. Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/infonatura/. Accessed August 22, 

2011.

Nedwell, J. 2010. The dBht method for evaluating impact, airgun silencers and LF projector arrays. In: 

Weilgart, L.S., ed. Report of the Workshop on Alternative Technologies to Seismic Airgun Surveys 

for Oil and Gas Exploration and Their Potential for Reducing Impacts on Marine Mammals, 

Monterey, California, USA, August 31 - September 1, 2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, Auf 

der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. Pp. 26-27. Internet website: http://www.sound-in-thesea.org/download/AirgunAlt2010_en.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Nedwell, J.R., B. Edwards, A.W.H. Turnpenny, and J. Gordon. 2004. Fish and marine mammal 

audiograms: A summary of available information. Prepared by Subacoustech Ltd., Hamphire, UK. 

Report 534 R 0214.

Neff, J.M. 1987. Biological effects of drilling fluids, drill cuttings and produced waters. In: 

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. Long-term effects of offshore oil and gas development. 

London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers. Pp. 469-538.

Neff, J.M. 2005. Composition, environmental fates, and biological effects of water based drilling muds 

and cuttings discharged to the marine environment: A synthesis and annotated bibliography. 

Prepared for Petroleum Environmental Research Forum and American Petroleum Institute. Battelle, 

Duxbury, MA. 83 pp. Internet website: http://www.perf.org/images/API_PERF_drilling_

mud_report.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling 

fluids. Prepared by Robert Ayers & Associates, Inc. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 

118 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3175.pdf. Accessed 

September 28, 2011.

Nelson, K. 2009. When birds strike. Vertical June/July 2009:90-93. Internet website: 

http://www.nelsonaero.com/uploaded_files/018.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2013

Nestler, J.M., G.R. Ploskey, J.R. Pickens, J. Menezes, and C. Schilt. 1992. Responses of blueback 

herring to high-frequency sound and implications for reducing entrainment at hydropower dams. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:667-683.

New England Fishery Management Council. 1998a. Amendment #11 to the northeast multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan, Amendment #9 to the Atlantic sea scallop Fishery Management Plan, 

Amendment #1 to the monkfish Fishery Management Plan, Amendment #1 to the Atlantic salmon 

Fishery Management Plan, components of the proposed Atlantic herring Fishery Management Plan 

for Essential Fish Habitat incorporating the Environmental Assessment, Volume I. 

New England Fishery Management Council. 1998b. Amendment #9 to the northeast multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan incorporating an Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact 

Review, Volume I. 70 pp.

New England Fishery Management Council. 1998c. Monkfish Fishery Management Plan, Supplement I. 

In cooperation with Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. New England Fishery Management Council, Saugas, MA.

New England Fishery Management Council. 2002. Fishery Management Plan for deep-sea red crab 

(Chaceon quinquedens), Volume I. Including a final environmental impact statement, initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis, regulatory impact review, and social impact assessment/fishery impact 

statement. In consultation with the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Gloucester, MA. 434 pp. + apps.
6-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

New England Fishery Management Council. 2007. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Omnibus Amendment. 

Phase I decision document. Internet website: http://www.nefmc.org/habitat/council_mtg_docs/Doc%

2012%20EFH%20Omnibus%20Amendment%20Phase%201%20Decision%20Document_jun07.pdf. 

No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Nieukirk, S.L, K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale 

and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 

115(4):1832-1843.

Nieukirk, S.L., D.K. Mellinger, S.E. Moore, K. Klinck, R.P. Dziak, and J. Goslin. 2012. Sounds from 

airguns and fin whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999-2009. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 131(2):1102-1112.

Niezrecki, C., R. Phillips, M. Meyer, and D.O. Beusse. 2003. Acoustic detection of manatee 

vocalizations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114:1640-1647. Internet website: http://

murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/digital/journals/JASA/JASA2003/pdfs/vol_114/iss_3/1640_1.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2011. New insights and new tools regarding risk to roseate terns, piping 

plovers, and red knots from wind facility operations on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. 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 2011-048. 287 pp.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2012. Effects of noise on fish, fisheries, and invertebrates in the U.S. 

Atlantic and Arctic from energy industry sound-generating activities. A literature synthesis for the 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Contract No. M11PC00031. 

135 pp.

Normandeau Associates, Inc., Exponent, Inc., T. Tricas, and A. Gill. 2011. Effects of EMFs from 

undersea power cables on elasmobranchs and other marine species. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. 

OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09.

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. 2011. North Carolina artificial reefs. Internet website: 

http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/artificial-reefs-program. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

North Carolina Ports. 2011. Port of Wilmington. Internet website: http://www.ncports.com/port-ofwilmington/. Accessed August 24, 2011.

North Carolina State University. 2011. Economic contribution of the North Carolina ports, final report, 

February 2011. Prepared by the North Carolina State University, Institute for Transportation 

Research and Education (ITRE). Internet website: http://www.ncports.com/elements/old/userfiles/

Economic%20Contribution%20Final%20Report%20ITRE.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012. 

Nowacek, D.P., B.M. Casper, R.S. Wells, S.M. Nowacek, and D.A. Mann. 2003. Intraspecific and 

geographic variation of West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus spp.) vocalizations. J. Acoust. 

Soc. Am. 114:66-69.

Nowacek, D.P., M.P. Johnson, and P.L. Tyack. 2004. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Part B., 

271:227-231.

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, S.M., R.S. Wells, and A.R. Solow. 2001. Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 17(4):673-688.

Nunny, R., E. Graham, and S. Bass. 2008. Do sea turtles use acoustic cues when nesting? NOAA Tech. 

Mem. NMFS SEFSC No. 582:83. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/

turtlesymposium2005.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.
References Cited 6-45

Nye, J.A., J.S. Link, J.A. Hare, and W.J. Overholtz. 2009. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in 

relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. 

Prog. Ser. 393:111-129.

O’Hara, P.D. and L.A. Morandin. 2010. Effects of sheens associated with offshore oil and gas 

development on the feather microstructure of pelagic seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin

60(5):672-678.

O’Shea, T.J. and L.B. Poche. 2006. Aspects of underwater sound communication in Florida manatees 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). J. Mammal 8:1061-1071.

Ocean Conservancy. 2011. Tracking trash, 25 years of action for the ocean. 2011 Report. 43 pp.

O’Connell, A., C. S. Spiegel, and S. Johnson. 2011. Compendium of avian occurrence information for 

the continental shelf waters along the Atlantic coast of the United States, Final Report (Database 

Section - Shorebirds). Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MD, for the U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville, MD. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Headquarters. 

OCS Study BOEM 2012-076.

Øien, N., L. Folkow, and C. Lydersen. 1990. Dive time experiments on minke whales in Norwegian 

waters during the 1988 season. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 40. Pp. 337-341.

Okeanos. 2008. Underwater radiated noise of ocean-going merchant ships. International Workshop on 

Shipping Noise and marine mammals, Hamburg, germany, 21–24 April 2008. 7 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.okeanos-foundation.org/assets/Uploads/TechnicalPaper2.pdf. 

Olesiuk, P.F., L.M. Nichol, M.J. Sowden, and J.K.B. Ford. 2002. Effect of the sound generated by an 

acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbor porpoises 

(Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Marine Mammal Science 18:843-862.

Oleson, E.M., J. Barlow, J. Gordon, S. Rankin, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2003. Low frequency calls of 

Bryde’s whales. Marine Mammal Science 19(2):407-419.

Olsgard, F. and J.S. Gray. 1995. A comprehensive analysis of the effects of offshore oil and gas 

exploration and production on the benthic communities of the Norwegian continental shelf. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 122:277-306.

Onley, D. and P. Scofield. 2007. Albatrosses, petrels, and shearwaters of the world. Princeton 

Princeton, NJ: University Press. 240 pp.

Orphanides, C.D. and G.M. Magnusson. 2007. Characterization of the northeast and mid-Atlantic 

bottom and mid-water trawl fisheries based on vessel trip report (VTR) data. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Ref. Doc. 07-15. 127 pp. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA. Internet website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

publications/crd/crd0715/crd0715.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Orr, J.C., V. J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, 

A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K.Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, 

R.G. Najjar, G-K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, 

I.J. Totterdell, M-F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification 

over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681-686. Internet 

website: http://web.archive.org/web/20080625100559/http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/

acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2012. 

Pace, R.M. 2011. Frequency of whale and vessel collisions on the U.S. Eastern seaboard: Ten years 

prior and two years post ship strike rule. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Ref. Doc. 11-15. 12 pp. 

Pacini, A.F., P.E. Nachtigall, L.N. Kloepper, M. Linnenschmidt, A. Sogorb, and S. Matias. 2010. 

Audiogram of a formerly stranded long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) measured using 

auditory evoked potentials. Journal of Environmental Biology 213:3138-3143.
6-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Packard, G.C. 1999. Water relations of chelonian eggs and embryos: Is wetter better? American

Zoologist 39:289-303.

Packer, D.B., D. Boelke, V. Guida, and L. McGee. 2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the 

northeastern US region: Maine to Cape Hatteras. In: Lumsden, S.E., T.F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, 

and G. Dorr, eds. The state of deep coral ecosystems of the United States. Silver Spring, MD, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP-3. Pp. 195-231. Internet website: http://www.coris.noaa.gov/

activities/deepcoral_rpt/. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Paine, R.T., J.L. Ruesink, A. Sun, E.L. Soulanille, M.J. Wonham, C.D.G. Harley, D.R. Brumbaugh, and 

D.L. Secord. 1996. Trouble on oiled waters: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:197–235.

Paquet, D., C. Haycock, and H. Whitehead. 1997. Numbers and seasonal occurrence of humpback 

whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, off Brier Island, Nova Scotia. The Canadian Field-Naturalist

111:548-552.

Parker, R.O., Jr. and R.W. Mays. 1998. Southeastern U.S. deepwater reef fish assemblages, habitat 

characteristics, catches, and life history summaries. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 138. 41 pp. Internet website: http://

spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr138.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Parker, R.O., Jr. and S.W. Ross. 1986. Observing reef fishes from submersibles off North Carolina. 

Northeast Gulf Science 8(1):31-49. 

Parker, R.O., Jr., D.R. Colby, and T.D. Willis. 1983. Estimated amount of reef habitat on portion of the 

U.S. south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Bulletin of Marine Science 33(4):935-940.

Parker, R.O., Jr., A.J. Chester, and R.S. Nelson. 1994. A video transect method for estimating reef fish 

abundance, composition, and habitat utilization at Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Georgia. 

U.S. Fishery Bulletin 92:787-799. 

Parks, S.E. and C.W. Clark. 2007. Acoustic communication: Social sounds and the potential impacts of 

noise. In: Kraus, S.D. and R.M. Rolland, eds. The urban whale: North Atlantic right whales at the 

crossroads. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 310-332.

Parks, S.E. and P.L. Tyack. 2005. Sound production by North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in surface active groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117(5):3297-3306.

Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Short- and long-term changes in right whale calling 

behavior: The potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 122(6):3725-3731.

Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2008. Long- and short-term changes in right whale acoustic 

behaviour in increased low-frequency noise. Bioacoustics 17:179-180.

Parks, S., I. Urazghildiiev, and C.W. Clark. 2009. Variability in ambient noise levels and call parameters 

of North Atlantic right whales in three habitat areas. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

125:1230-1239.

Parry, G.D. and A. Gason. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western 

Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research 79:272-284.

Partyka, M.L., S.W. Ross, A.M. Quattrini, G.R. Sedberry, T.W. Birdsong, J. Potter, and S. Gottfried. 

2007. Southeastern United States Deep-Sea Corals (SEADESC) Initiative: A collaboration to 

characterize areas of habitat forming deep-sea corals. NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR OER 1. 

Silver Spring, MD. 176 pp. Internet website: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/Lophelia/

SEADESC_Report.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Patanaude, N.J., W.J. Richardson, M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene. 

2002. Aircraft sound and disturbance to bowhead and beluga whales during spring migration in the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18(2):309-335. 
References Cited 6-47

Patterson, B. and G.R. Hamilton. 1964. Repetitive 20 cycle per second biological hydroacoustic signals 

at Bermuda. In: W.N. Tavolga, ed. Marine Bio-acoustics. New York, NY: Pergamon. 

Pp. 125-145.

Payne, J.F., C.A. Andrews, L.L. Fancey, A.L. Cook, and J.R. Christian. 2007. Pilot study on the effects 

of seismic air gun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 2712. 46 pp.

Pegg, M. 2005. Sound and Bubble Barrier Deters Asian Carp. ACES News. July 21, 2005.

Penner, R.H., C.W. Turl, and W.W. Au. 1986. Target detection by the beluga using a surface-reflected 

path. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80(6):1842-1843.

Perrin, W.F. 2002a. Atlantic spotted dolphin. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 47-49. 

Perrin, W.F. 2002b. Pantropical spotted dolphin,. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, 

eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 865-867. 

Perrin, W.F. 2002c. Spinner dolphin. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 1174-1178.

Perrin, W.F. and J.W. Gilpatrick, Jr. 1994. Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris. In: Ridgway, S.H. and 

R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 5. London: Academic Press. Pp. 99-128.

Perrin, W.F. and A.A. Hohn. 1994. Spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata. In: Ridgway, S.H. and 

R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 5. London: Academic Press. Pp. 71-98.

Perrin, W.F., C.E. Wilson, and F.I. Archer. 1994. Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba. In: Ridgway 

S.H. and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 5. London: Academic Press. 

Pp. 129-160.

Peterson, C.H., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, D. Esler, J.L. Bodkin, B.E. Ballachey, and D.B. Irons. 2003. 

Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302:2082-2086.

Peterson, R.T. 1980. Peterson field guides – eastern birds. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin 

Company. 383 pp.

Pierce, K.E., R.J. Harris, L.S. Larned, and M.A. Porkas. 2004. Obstruction and starvation associated 

with plastic ingestion in a Northern Gannet Morus bassanus and a Greater Shearwater Puffinus 

gravis. Marine Ornithology 32:187–189. 

Pierson, L.J., G.I. Shiner, and R.A. Slater. 1987. Archaeological resource study: Morro Bay to Mexican 

border; final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, 

Camarillo, CA. OCS Study MMS 87-0025. 310 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/

PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/1/1899.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012. 

Pike, D.A. and J.C. Stiner. 2007. Sea turtle species vary in their susceptibility to tropical cyclones. 

Oecologia 153:471-478.

Plachta, D.T.T. and A.N. Popper. 2003. Evasive responses of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) to 

ultrasonic stimuli. Acoust Res Lett Online 4:25-30.

Polacheck, T. and L. Thorpe. 1990. The swimming direction of harbor porpoise in relation to a survey 

vessel. Report of the International Whaling Commission 40:463-470.

Polovina, J.J., E. Howell, D.M. Parker, and G.H. Balazs. 2003. Dive-depth distribution of loggerhead 

(Carretta carretta) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in the central North Pacific: 

Might deep longline sets catch fewer turtles? Fishery Bulletin 101(1):189-193. Internet website: 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/pubs/Polovina_etal_2003.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.
6-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Popenoe, P. and F.T. Manheim. 2001. Origin and history of the Charleston Bump—Geological 

formations, currents, bottom conditions, and their relationship to wreckfish habitats on the Blake 

Plateau, pp. 43-96. In: G. R. Sedberry, ed. Island in the Stream: Oceanography and Fisheries of the 

Charleston Bump. American Fisheries Society Symposium 25. Bethesda, MD.

Popov, V.V. and V.O. Klishin. 1998. EEG study of hearing in the common dolphin, Delphinus delphis. 

Aquatic Mammals 24(1):13-20. 

Popper, A.N. 1980. Scanning electron microscopic studies of the sacculus and lagena in several deep-sea 

fishes. American Journal of Anatomy 157:115-136.

Popper, A.N. 2005. A review of hearing by sturgeon and lamprey. Report for U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR.

Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009a. The effects on fish of human-generated (anthropogenic) sound. 

Integrative Zoology 4:43-52.

Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009b. Effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. Journal of 

Fish Biology 75:455-498. 

Popper, A.N. and A. Hawkins, eds. 2011. Effects of noise on aquatic life. New York, NY: Springer 

Science + Business Media, LLC. 

Popper, A.N. and B. Hoxter. 1984. Growth of a fish ear: 1. Quantitative analysis of sensory hair cell 

and ganglion cell proliferation. Hearing Research 15:133-142. 

Popper, A.N. and C.R. Schilt. 2008. Hearing and acoustic behavior (basic and applied). In: Webb, J.F., 

R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. Fish bioacoustics. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business 

Media, LLC.

Popper, A.N., R.R. Fay, C. Platt, and O. Sand. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of 

teleost fishes. In: Collin, S.P. and N.J. Marshall, eds. Sensory processing in aquatic environments. 

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 3-38.

Potter, G., A. Mann, M. Jenkerson, and J.M. Rodriguez. 1997. Comparison of marine vibrator, dynamite 

and airgun sources in the transition zone. Conference and Technical Exhibition - European 

Association of Geoscientists and Engineers 59:B018. Geneva, Switzerland, 26-30 May, 1997. 

Powell, A.B. and R.E. Robbins. 1994. Abundance and distribution of ichthyoplankton along an 

inshore-offshore transect in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120. Internet website: http://

spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr120.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Powles, H. and C.A. Barans. 1980. Groundfish monitoring in sponge-coral areas off the southeastern 

United States. Marine Fisheries Review 42(5):21-35. Internet website: http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/

mfr425/mfr4253.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Powles, H. and B.W. Stender. 1976. Observations on composition, seasonality, and distribution of 

ichthyoplankton from MARMAP cruises in the South Atlantic Bight in 1973. South Carolina Marine 

Resources Center, Technical Report No. 11:1-47.

Purser, J. and A.N. Radford. 2011. Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging 

performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PloSone 6(2):1-8.

PurGen. 2011. PurGen One. Internet website: http://www.purgenone.com/. Accessed September 2, 

2011. 

Quattrini, A.M. and S.W. Ross. 2006. Fishes associated with North Carolina shelf-edge hard bottoms 

and initial assessment of a proposed marine protected area. Bulletin of Marine Science 79(1):137-63.

Quattrini, A.M., S.W. Ross, K.J. Sulak, A.M. Necaise, T.L. Casazza, and G.D. Dennis. 2004. Marine 

fishes new to continental United States waters, North Carolina, and the Gulf of Mexico. Southeastern 

Naturalist 3(1)(2004):155-172. 
References Cited 6-49

Ramcharitar, J., D. Gannon, and A. Popper. 2006. Bioacoustics of fishes of the family Sciaenidae 

(croakers and drums). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1409-1431.

Ramcharitar, J.U., X., Deng, D. Ketten, and A.N. Popper. 2004. Form and function in the unique inner 

ear of a teleost fish: The silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura). Journal of Comparative Neurology

475:531-539.

Rankin, S., T.F. Norris, M.A. Smultea, C. Oedekoven, A.M. Zoidis, E. Silva, and J. Rivers. 2007. A 

visual sighting and acoustic detections of minke whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata (Cetacea: 

Balaenopteridae), in nearshore Hawaiian waters. Pacific Science 61:395-398.

Rappole, J.H. 1995. The ecology of migrant birds: A neotropical perspective. Washington: 

Smithsonian Inst. Press. 269 pp. Internet website: http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?

requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=3862272&q=&uid=790713694&setcookie=yes. Accessed 

August 22, 2011.

Ray, G.C., B.P. Hayden, M.G. McCormick-Ray, and T.M. Smith. 1997. Land-seascape diversity of the 

U.S.A. east coast coastal zone with particular reference to estuaries. In: Ormand, R.F.G., J.D. Gage, 

and M.V. Angel, eds. Marine biodiversity, patterns and processes. Cambridge University Press. 

Pp. 337-371.

Reed, J.K. 2002a. Comparison of deep-water coral reefs and lithoherms off southeastern USA. 

Hydrobiologia 471:57-69. Internet website: http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/CAMA/CRCP/FDOU/

FDOU%2010/journals/Journals/comparisonofdeepwatercoralreefs.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011. 

Reed, J.K. 2002b. Deep-water Oculina coral reefs of Florida: Biology, impacts, and management. 

Hydrobiologia 471(1 March):43-55. 

Reed, J.K. and S.W. Ross. 2005. Deep-water reefs of the southeastern U.S.: Recent discoveries and 

research. The Journal of Marine Education 21(4):33-37. Internet website: http://www.mcbi.org/

what/what_pdfs/Current_Magazine/Southeastern_US.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Reed, J.K., A.N. Shepard, C.C. Koenig, K.M. Scanlon, and R.G. Gilmore, Jr. 2005. Mapping, habitat 

characterization, and fish surveys of the deep-water Oculina coral reef Marine Protected Area: A 

review of historical and current research. In: Freiwaldk, A. and J.M. Roberts, eds. Cold-water corals 

and ecosystems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 26-27. Internet website: 

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-27673-4_22. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Reed, J.K., D.C. Weaver, and S.A. Pomponi. 2006. Habitat and fauna of deep-water Lophelia pertusa 

coral reefs off the southeastern U.S.: Blake Plateau, Straits of Florida, and Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin 

of Marine Science 78(2):343-375. Internet website: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/Lophelia/

BMS5234-Reed.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Reed, J.K., C.C. Koenig, and A.N. Shepard. 2007. Impact of bottom trawling on a deep-water Oculina

coral ecosystem off Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 81:481–496. Internet website: http://

www.safmc.net/Portals/0/DeepCoralComm/Oculina%20Trawl%20BMS%205478%20

Reed_2007.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Reeves, C. 2005. Aeromagnetic Surveys. Principles, Practice, and Interpretation. October 2005. 

Internet website: http://www.geosoft.com/media/uploads/resources/technical-papers/

Aeromagnetic_Survey_Reeves.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2012. 

Reeves, R. and J.K. Ling. 1981. Hooded seal - Cystophora cristata. In: Ridgway, S.H. and 

R.J. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Volume 2 (Seals). Academic Press. Pp. 171-194.

Reeves, R.R. and E. Mitchell. 1988. Killer whale sightings and takes by American pelagic whalers in the 

North Atlantic. Rit. Fiskideild. 9:7-23.

Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, and S. Leatherwood. 1992. The Sierra Club handbook of seals and sirenians. 

San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. 359 pp.

Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell, and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the northern bottlenose whale, 

Hyperoodon ampullatus. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 107:490-508.
6-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, P.J. Clapham, and J.A. Powell. 2002. Guide to marine mammals of the 

world. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. 527 pp.

Rex, M.A., C.R. McClain, N.A. Johnson, R.J. Etter, J.A. Allen, P. Bouchet, and A. Waren. 2005. A 

source-sink hypothesis for abyssal biodiversity. The American Naturalist 165(2):163-178. Internet 

website: http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/Students/Current_Students/SIO277/Rex%20et%20al.%20%282005%

29.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Reyff, J.A. 2009. Reducing underwater sounds with air bubble curtains: Protecting fish and marine 

mammals from pile-driving noise. TR News 262:31-33. Internet website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/trnews/trnews262rpo.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Reynolds, J.E. and J.A. Powell. 2002. Manatees. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, 

eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 709-720. 

Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. In: Ridgway, S.H. and 

R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 4: River dolphins and the larger toothed 

whales. London: Academic Press. Pp. 177-233.

Rice, M.R. and G.H. Balazs. 2008. Diving behavior of the Hawaiian green turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

during oceanic migrations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 356 (1-2):121-127.

Richards, W.J. 1999. Problems with unofficial and inaccurate geographical names in the fisheries 

literature. Marine Fisheries Review 61(3):56-57. Internet website: http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr613/

mfr6134.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. In: J.J. Burns, 

J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles, eds. The bowhead whale. Special Publication 2, Society of Marine 

Mammology, Lawrence, KS. Pp. 631-700.

Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 79:1117-1128.

Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene. 1990. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, to drilling and dredging noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Mar. Envir. Research 

29:135-160.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 576 pp.

Ridgway, S.H. and D.A. Carder. 2001. Assessing hearing and sound production in cetacean species not 

available for behavioral audiograms: Experiences with sperm, pygmy sperm, and gray whales. 

Aquatic Mammals 27:267-276. Internet website: http://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/share/

AquaticMammalsIssueArchives/2001/AquaticMammals_27-03/27-03_Ridgway.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson. 1969. Hearing in the giant 

sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 64:884-890. Internet 

website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC223317/pdf/pnas00113-0080.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Risch, D., P.J. Corkeron, W.T. Ellison, and S.M. van Parijs. 2012. Changes in humpback whale song 

occurrence in response to an acoustic source 200 km away. PLoS ONE 7(1):e29741. 

Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029741.

Rolland, R.M., S.E. Parks, K.E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P.J. Corkeron, D.P. Nowacek, S.K. Wasser, and 

S.D. Kraus. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:2363-2368. 

Romanenko, E.V. and V.Ya. Kitain. 1992. The functioning of the echolocation system of Tursiops

truncatus during noise masking. In: Thomas, J., R. Kastelein, and A. Supin,eds. Marine mammal 

sensory systems. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Pp. 415-419. 
References Cited 6-51

Romano, T.A., M.J. Keogh, C. Schlundt, D. Carder, and J. Finneran. 2004. Anthropogenic sound and 

marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune systems before and after intense 

sound. Candian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61(7):1124-1134.

Ronald, K. and P.J. Healey. 1981. Harp seal - Phoca groenlandica. In: Ridgway, S.H. and 

R.J. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Volume 2 (Seals). Academic Press. Pp. 55-88.

Ross, Q.E., D.J. Dunning, J.K. Menezes, M.J. Kenna, Jr., and G.Tiller. 1996. Reducing impingement of 

alewives with high frequency sound at a power plant on Lake Ontario. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management16:548-559.

Ross, S.W. 2006. Review of distribution, habitats and associated fauna of deep water coral reefs on the 

southeastern United States continental slope (North Carolina to Cape Canaveral, FL). Prepared for 

the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 36 pp. Internet website: http://www.safmc.net/

Portals/0/Fep_teams/Ross_reportMay06.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Ross, S.W. and M.S. Nizinski. 2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the U.S. southeast region: Cape 

Hatteras to Southeastern Florida. In: Lumsden, S.E., T.F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr, 

eds. The state of deep coral ecosystems of the United States. Silver Spring, MD, NOAA Tech. 

Memo. CRCP-3. Pp. 233-270. Internet website: http://coris.noaa.gov/activities/deepcoral_rpt/

Chapter6_Southeast.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Ross, W.R. and A.M. Quattrini. 2007. The fish fauna associated with deep coral banks off the 

southeastern United States. Deep-Sea Research I 54(6):975-1007. Internet website: http://

www.safmc.net/Portals/0/Lophelia/RossQuattrini%20DSR%2054%202007.pdf. Accessed 

August 17, 2011.

Ross, S.W. and A.M. Quattrini. 2009. Deep-sea reef fish assemblage patterns on the Blake Plateau 

(Western North Atlantic Ocean). Marine Ecology 30:74-92.

Ross, S.W., E.F. Aschenbach III, and J. Ott. 2001. Literature and data inventory related to the Hatteras 

middle slope (“The Point”) area off North Carolina. Report for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service. Internet website: http://www.uncw.edu/nurc/Steve_Ross/

Figures_PDF/entire_document.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Ross, W.S., S.E. Heiney, E.N. Drake, R. Tenghamn, A. Stenzel. 2004. Mitigating noise in seismic 

surveys with an acoustic blanket. EAGE Research Workshop - Advances in Seismic Acquisition 

Technology, 20 September 2004.

Ross, W.S., P.J. Lee, S.E. Heiney, and J.V. Young. 2005. Mitigating seismic noise with an acoustic 

blanket—the promise and the challenge. The Leading Edge 24(3):303-313.

Rountree, R.A., R.G. Gilmore, C.A. Goudey, A.D. Hawkins, J.J. Luczkovich, and D.A. Mann. 2006. 

Listening to fish: Applications of passive acoustics to fisheries science. Fisheries 31(9):433-446. 

Rudershausen, P.J., J.A. Buckel, J. Edwards, D.P. Gannon, C.M. Butler, T.W. Averett. 2010. Feeding 

ecology of blue marlins, dolphinfish, yellowfin tuna, and wahoos from the north Atlantic Ocean and 

comparisons with other ocean. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1335-1359.

Ruiz-Carus, R., R.E. Matheson, Jr., D.E. Roberts Jr., P.E. Whitfield. 2006. The western Pacific red 

lionfish, Pterois volitans (Scorpaenidae), in Florida: Evidence for reproduction and parasitism in the 

first exotic marine fish established in State waters. Biological Conservation 128(3):384-390.

Saenger, E.H., S. Schmalholz, S. Metzger, R. Habiger, T. Müller, and S. Rentsch. 2009. A passive 

seismic survey over a gas field: Analysis of low-frequency anomalies: Geophysics 74:029-040.

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).
6-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Sale, A., P. Luschi, R. Mencacci, P. Lambardi, G.R. Hughes, G.C. Hays, S. Benvenuti, and F. Papi. 

2006. Long-term monitoring of leatherback turtle diving behaviour during oceanic movements. 

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 328:197-210. Internet website: http://

www.seaturtle.org/ghays/reprints/Sale%20et%20al.%202006%20JEMBE.pdf. Accessed August 19, 

2011.

Samuel, Y., S.J. Morreale, C.W. Clark, C.H. Greene, and M.E. Richmond. 2005. Underwater, 

low-frequency noise in coastal sea turtle habitat. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

117(3):1465-1472. Internet website: http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v117/i3/p1465_s1. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

Sand, O. and H.E. Karlsen. 1986. Detection of infrasound by the Atlantic cod. Journal of Experimental 

Biology 125:197-204.

Sarà, G., J.M. Dean, D. D’Amato, G. Buscaino, A. Oliveri, S. Genovese, S. Ferro, G. Buffa, 

M. Lo Martire, and S. Mazzola. 2007. Effect of boat noise on the behaviour of bluefin tuna Thunnus 

thynnus in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 331:243-253.

Scarpaci, C., S.W. Bigger, P.J. Corkeron, and D. Nugegoda. 2000. Bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, increase whistling in the presence of “swim-with-dolphin” tour operators. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management 2(3):183-186.

Schaffner, L.C. and D.F. Boesch. 1982. Spatial and temporal resource use by dominant benthic 

Amphipoda (Ampeliscidae and Corophiidae) on the Middle Atlantic Bight outer continental shelf. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 9:231-243. Internet website: http://www.intres.com/articles/meps/9/m009p231.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Scharf, F.S., J.P. Manderson, and M.C. Fabrizio. 2006. The effects of seafloor habitat complexity on 

survival of juvenile fishes: Species-specific interactions with structural refuge. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 335(2):167-76. 

Scheer, M., B. Hofmann, and I.P. Behr. 1998. Discrete pod-specific call repetoires among short-finned 

pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) off the SW coast of Tenerife, Canary Islands. Abstract 

World Marine Mammal Science Conference, 20-24 January, Monaco. European Cetacean Society 

and Society for Marine Mammalogy.

Schevill, W.E. and W.A. Watkins. 1965. Underwater calls of Trichechus (Manatee). Nature (London) 

205:373-374.

Schmid, J.R., A.B. Bolten, K.A. Bjorndal, and W.J. Lindberg. 2002. Activity patterns of Kemp’s ridley 

turtles, Lepidochelys kempii, in the coastal waters of the Cedar Keys, Florida. Marine Biology 

140:215-228. Internet website: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtles/PR_Schmid_etal_2002_MB.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

Schobernd, C.M. and G.R. Sedberry. 2009. Shelf-edge and upper-slope reef fish assemblages in the 

south Atlantic Bight: Habitat characteristics, spatial variation, and reproductive behavior. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 84(1):67-92. Internet website: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/

SEDAR24-RD64_Schobernd_2009.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Schreiber, E.A. and J. Burger. 2002. Seabirds in the marine environment. In: Schreiber, E.A. and 

J. Burger, eds. Biology of marine birds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 1-15. 

Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

731 pp.

Sears, R. 2002. Blue whale, pp. 112-116. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 1,414 pp.

Sedberry, G.R. and R.F. Van Dolah. 1984. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard bottom 

habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes 11(4):241-258. 

Internet website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/science/publications/pdfs/i-46.pdf. Accessed August 17, 

2011.
References Cited 6-53

Sedberry, G.R., J.C. McGovern, and O. Pahuk. 2001. The Charleston Bump: An island of essential fish 

habitat in the Gulf Stream. In: Island in the stream: Oceanography and fisheries of the Charleston 

Bump. American Fisheries Society Symposium 25:3-24. 

Sedberry, G.R., S.L. Cooksey, S.F. Crowe, J. Hyland, P.C. Jutte, C.M. Ralph, and L.R. Sautter. 2004. 

Characterization of deep reef habitat off the southeastern U.S., with particular emphasis on discovery, 

exploration, and description of reef fish spawning sites. Marine Resources Research Institute, South 

Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources, Charleston, SC. 77 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/FEBpub/sedberry_etal_2004_OE.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Sedberry, G.R., O. Pashuk, D.M. Wyanski, J.A. Stephen, and P. Weinbach. 2006. Spawning locations 

for Atlantic reef fishes off the southeastern U.S. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries 

Institute 57:463-514. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/safereports/docs/SAFE%20CD/

MARMAP%20reports/Sedberry_%20et_al.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Seitz, J.C. and G.R. Poulakis. 2006. Anthropogenic effects on the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

in the United States. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:1533-1540.

Selzer, L.A. and P.M. Payne. 1988. The distribution of white-sided (Lagenorhynchus acutus) and 

common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) vs. environmental features of the continental shelf of the 

northeastern United States. Marine Mammal Science 4(2):141-153.

Seminoff, J.A., A. Resendiz, and W.J. Nichols. 2002. Home range size of green turtles Chelonia mydas

at a coastal foraging area in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series

242:253-265.

Sergeant, D.E. 1965. Migrations of harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus (Erxleben) in the Northwest 

Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 22:433-464. 

Sergeant, D.E. 1976. History and present status of populations of harp and hooded seals. Biological 

Conservation 10:95-117.

Sexton, T. 2007. Underwater sound levels associated with pile driving during the Anacortes Ferry 

Terminal Dolphin Replacement Project, April 2007. 41 pp + app.

Shane, S.H., R.S. Wells, and B. Würsig. 1986. Ecology, behavior, and social organization of the 

bottlenose dolphin: A review. Marine Mammal Science 2(1):34-63.

Shaver, D.J., B.A. Schroeder, R.A. Byles, P.M. Burchfield, J. Pena, R. Marquez, and H. Martinez. 2005. 

Movements and home ranges of adult male Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) in the 

Gulf of Mexico investigated by satellite telemetry. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:817-827. 

Shealer, D. 2002. Foraging behavior and food of seabirds. In: Schreiber, E.A. and J. Burger, eds. 

Biology of marine birds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 137-177.

Shillinger G.L., D.M. Palacios, H. Bailey, S.J. Bograd, A.M. Swithenbank, P. Gaspar, B.P. Wallace, 

J.R. Spotila, F.V. Paladino, R. Piedra, S.A. Eckert, and B.A. Block. 2008. Persistent leatherback 

turtle migrations present opportunities for conservation. PLoS Biol. 6(7):1408-1416. Internet 

website: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060171. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Shinn, E.A. and B.H. Lidz. 1992. Impact of offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Offshore 

Technology Conference, Houston, TX. OTC 6871, pp. 517-524.

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, and P. Dustan. 1989. Impact assessment of exploratory wells offshore South 

Florida. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0022. 111 pp.

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, and C.D. Reich. 1993. Habitat impacts of offshore drilling: Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 93-0021. 73 pp.
6-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Shirihai, H. and B. Jarrett. 2006. Whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals of the world. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press. 384 pp.

Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. National Audubon Society. New York, NY: A.A. Knopf. 

235 pp.

Sierra Club. 2010. Petition to revise critical habitat for the endangered leatherback sea turtle. San 

Francisco, California. 25 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/petitions/

leatherback_criticalhabitat_feb2010.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Simmonds, M., S. Dolman, and L. Weilgart. 2003. Oceans of noise. WDCS Science Report. Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation Society. 129 pp. Internet website: http://www.mmc.gov/sound/

internationalwrkshp/pdf/simmondsetal.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2011.

Simmonds, M., S. Dolman, and L. Weilgart. 2004. Oceans of noise 2004. A WDCS Science Report. 

Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. 168 pp. Internet website: http://www.wdcs.org/

submissions_bin/OceansofNoise.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2012.

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. Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 40 pp.

Simpfendorfer, C.A. and T.R. Wiley. 2006. National smalltooth sawfish encounter database. Mote 

Marine Laboratory Technical Report 1134. A final report for NOAA Purchase Order 

No. GA133F05SE5547. 13 pp. Internet website: https://dspace.mote.org/dspace/bitstream/2075/

284/1/colin-%231134.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Širovic, A., J.A. Hildebrand, S.M. Wiggins, M.A. McDonald, S.E. Moore, and D. Thiele. 2004. 

Seasonality of blue and fin whale calls and the influence of sea ice in the Western Antarctic 

Peninsula. Deep-Sea Research Part II 51:2,327-2,344.

Sixma, E. 1996. Bubble screen acoustic attenuation test #1. Western Atlas/Western Geophysical Report. 

Conducted for Shell Venezuela. As cited in Ayers et al. (2009).

Sixma, E. and S. Stubbs. 1998. Air bubble screen noise suppression tests in Lake Maracaibo. Sociedad 

Venezolana de Ingenieros Geofiscos, Congreso Venezolano de Geofisica.

Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1357-1365.

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. 2011. South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore Observational 

Network (SABSOON). Internet website: http://www.skio.usg.edu/?p=research/phy/sabsoon/

sabsoon. Accessed January 9, 2012. 

Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate, and A.N. Popper. 2010. A noisy 

spring: The impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology & 

Evolution 25:419-427. 

Slacum, H.W., Jr., W.H. Burton, J.H. Vølstad, J. Dew, E. Weber, R. Llansó, and D. Wong. 2006. 

Comparisons between marine communities residing on sand shoals and uniform-bottom substrate in 

the Mid-Atlantic Bight. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, International 

Activities and Marine Minerals Division, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2005-042. 149 pp. + 

apps. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4160.pdf. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

Slotte, A., K. Kansen, J. Dalen, and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and 

abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fisheries Research

67:143-150.

Smith, J.G. and M.R. Jenkerson. 1998. Acquiring and processing marine vibrator data in the transition 

zone. Mobil Exploration and Producing Technical Centre.
References Cited 6-55

Smith, J.W. 1999. Distribution of Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, purse-seine sets and catches 

from southern New England to North Carolina, 1985-96. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA/National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS 144. Internet website: http://

spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr144.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Smith, M.E., A.B. Coffin, D.L. Miller, and A.N. Popper. 2006. Anatomical and functional recovery of 

the goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. Journal of Experimental Biology 

209:4193-4202. 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F., B.B. Collette, and B.E. Luckhurst. 1999. Fishes of Bermuda: History, 

zoogeography, annotated checklist, and identification keys. American Society of Ichthyologists and 

Herpetologists Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, KS. 

Smultea, M.A., J.A. Mobley, Jr., D. Fertl, and G.L. Fulling. 2008. An unusual reaction and other 

observations of sperm whales near fixed-wing aircraft. Gulf and Carib. Res., 20:75-80. 

Sobin, J.M. 2008. Diving behavior of female loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) during their 

internesting interval and an evaluation of the risk of boat strikes. M.Sc. Thesis, Duke University, 

Durham, NC. 49 pp. Internet website: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/

845/MP_jms73_a_200812.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Song, J., A. Mathieu, R.F. Soper, and A.N. Popper. 2006. Structure of the inner ear of bluefin tuna 

Thunnus thynnus. Journal of Fish Biology 68:1767-1781.

Song, J., D.A., Mann, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, and A.N. Popper. 2008. The inner ears of northern 

Canadian freshwater fishes following exposure to seismic air gun sounds. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 124:1360-1366.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1983. Fishery Management Plan, regulatory impact review 

and final environmental impact statement for the snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. Internet website: http://

www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/SnapGroupFMP.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Comprehensive amendment addressing essential 

fish habitat in fishery management plans of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Charleston, SC.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2002. Fishery Management Plan for the pelagic 

Sargassum habitat of the South Atlantic region, second revised final. Including a final environmental 

impact statement, initial regulatory flexibility analysis, regulatory impact review, and social impact 

assessment/fishery impact statement, November 2002. Charleston, SC. 228 pp. + apps. Internet 

website: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/Sargassum/SargFMP.pdf. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2003. Fishery Management Plan for the dolphin and 

wahoo fishery of the Atlantic. Including a final environmental impact statement, regulatory impact 

review, initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and social impact assessment/fishery impact statement. 

In cooperation with the New England Fishery Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. Pursuant to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Award Number NA17FC2202. 386 pp. + apps.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2007. Amendment 14 to the fishery management plan for 

the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic region. Internet website: http://www.safmc.net/

Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/FinalAmend14_071807.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2009. Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic 

Region. Volume I: Introduction and overview. Charleston, SC. April 2009. Internet website: 

http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/FEP/FisheryEcosystemPlanApril2009Final.pdf. No post date. 

Accessed August 17, 2011.
6-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2011a. Regulatory Amendment 10 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region with environmental 

assessment, initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, regulatory impact review, and social impact 

assessment. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 111 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ainP4u4As10%3d&tabid=415. Accessed August 23,

2011.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2011b. What is a Marine Protected Area? Internet 

website: http://www.safmc.net/MPAInformationPage/tabid/469/Default.aspx. Last updated 

November 23, 2009. Accessed August 24, 2011.

South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources. 2005a. The 2005 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) species description. Internet website: http://

www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Loggerheadturtle.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources. 2005b. The 2005 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) species description. Internet website: http://

www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Leatherbacktutle.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division. 2011. Marine artificial reefs. 

Internet website: http://saltwaterfishing.sc.gov/artificialreef.html. No post date. Accessed 

August 17, 2011.

South Carolina State Ports Authority. 2011. The Port of Charleston: The South Atlantic’s deepwater 

port. Internet website: http://www.port-of-charleston.com/default.asp. Accessed August 24, 2011.

Southall, B.L. 2005. Final report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

International Symposium: Shipping noise and marine mammals: A forum for science, management, 

and technology. 18-19 May 2004, Arlington, VA. 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, 

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. 

Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals

33(4):411-521. Internet website: http://www.thecre.com/pdf/Aquatic%20Mammals%2033%20

4_FINAL1.pdf

Southall, B.L., J. Calambokidis, P. Tyack, D. Moretti, J, Hildebrand, C. Kyburg, R. Carlson, 

A. Friedlaender, E. Falcone, G. Schorr, A. Douglas, S. DeRuiter, J. Goldbogen, and J. Barlow. 2011. 

Project report: Biological and Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern 

California, 2010 (SOCAL-10). 

Southall, B.L., T. Rowles, F. Gulland, R.W. Baird, and P.D. Jepson. 2013. Final report of the 

Independent Scientific Review Panel investigating potential contributing factors to a 2008 mass 

stranding of melon headed whales (Peponocephala electra) in Antsohihy, Madagascar.

Southwick Associates, Inc. 2006. The relative economic contributions of U.S. recreational and 

commercial fisheries. Fernandina Beach, FL. 31 pp. Internet website: http://

www.angling4oceans.org/pdf/Economics_of_Fisheries_Harvests.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Spence, J. 2009. Seismic survey noise under examination. Offshore Magazine 69, vol. 5. Internet 

website: http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-69/issue-5/geology-geophysics/

seismic-survey-noise-under-examination.html. Accessed August 6, 2013. 

Spence, J., R. Fischer, M. Bahtiarian, L. Boroditsky, N. Jones, and R. Dempsey. 2007. Review of 

existing and future potential treatments for reducing underwater sound from oil and gas industry 

activities. Prepared by Noise Control Engineering, Inc. for Joint Industry Programme on E&P Sound 

and Marine Life, London, UK. NCE Report 07-001. 185 pp.

Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin and F.V. Paladino. 1996. 

Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: Are leatherback turtles going extinct? 

Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):209-222. Internet website: http://www.leatherback.org/

ldc/pg/popdec.htm. Accessed August 19, 2011.
References Cited 6-57

Spotila, J.R., P. Plotkin, and J. Keinath. 2000. Sea turtles of Delaware Bay. Powerpoint presentation. 

Proceedings of the 2007 Delaware Estuary Science Conference & Environmental Summit. Internet 

website: http://www.delawareestuary.org/scienceandresearch/science_conf/Conference_

Presentations/DESC07_No58_Spotila58.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Stafford, K.M., C.G. Fox, and D.S. Clark. 1998. Long-range acoustic detection and localization of the 

blue whale calls in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

104(6):3616-3625.

Stafford, K.M., S.L. Nieukirk, and C.G. Fox. 1999a. An acoustic link between blue whales in the eastern 

tropical pacific and the northeast pacific. Marine Mammal Science 15(4):1258-1268.

Stafford, K.M., S.L. Nieukirk, and C.G. Fox. 1999b. Low-frequency whale sounds recorded on 

hydrophones moored in the eastern tropical Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

106(6):3687-3698.

Stafford, K.M., S.L. Nieukirk, and C.G. Fox. 2001. Geographic and seasonal variation of blue whale 

calls in the North Pacific. Journal Cetacean Research Management 3(1):65-76. 

Steel, C. and J.G. Morris. 1982. The West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus: An acoustic analysis. 

American Zoologist 22(4):925.

Steimle, F.W. and W. Figley. 1996. The importance of artificial reef epifauna to black sea bass diets in 

the middle Atlantic Bight. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:433-439. Internet 

website: http://njscuba.net/zzz_reefs/sea_bass_diet.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Steimle, F.W. and C. Zetlin. 2000. Reef habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Abundance, distribution, 

associated biological communities, and fishery resource use. Marine Fisheries Review 62(2):24-42. 

Internet website: http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr622/mfr6222.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Stein, A.B., K.B. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004. Atlantic sturgeon marine bycatch mortality on the 

continental shelf of the northeastern United States. North American Journal Fisheries Management 

24(1):171-183.

Stemp, R. 1985. Observations of the effects of seismic exploration on seabirds. In: G.D. Green, 

F.R. Engelhardt, and R.J. Patterson, eds. Proceedings of a workshop on effects of explosives use in 

the marine environment, January 1985, Halifax, NS. Technical Report Number 5. Canadian Oil and 

Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, Ottawa. Pp. 217-233. 

Stenson, G.B., R.A. Myers, I-H. Ni and W.G. Warren. 1996. Pup production of hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO Sci. Coun. Studies 26:105-114.

Stenson, G.B. and B. Sjare. 1997. Seasonal distribution of harp seals, Phoca groenlandica, in the 

Northwest Atlantic. ICES C.M. 1997/CC:10 (Biology and Behavior II). 23 pp.

Stetson, T.R., D.F. Squires, and R.M. Pratt. 1962. Coral banks occurring in deep water on the Blake 

Plateau. American Museum Novitates 2114:1-39.

Stevenson, D., L. Chiarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm, J. McCarthy, and M. Pentony. 2004. 

Characterization of the fishing practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the northeast U.S. shelf, 

and an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on essential fish habitat. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-181. 179 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm181/. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Strushaker, P. 1969. Demersal fish resources: Composition, distribution, and commercial potential of 

the continental shelf stocks off southeastern United States. Fisheries Industrial Research 4:261-300.

Stuart, C.T. and M.A. Rex. 2009. Bathymetric patterns of deep-sea gastropod species diversity in 

10 basins of the Atlantic Ocean and Norwegian Sea. Marine Ecology 30(2):164-180.

Stucker, J.H. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. Distribution of non-breeding Great Lakes piping plovers along 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines: 10 years of band resightings. A report to the U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.
6-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Sulak, K.J. 1982. A comparative taxonomic and ecological analysis of temperate and tropical demersal 

deep-sea fish faunas in the western north Atlantic. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral 

Gables, FL. 181 pp.

Sulak, K.J. and S.W. Ross. 1996. Lilliputian bottom fish fauna of the Hatteras upper middle continental 

slope. Journal of Fish Biology 49(Suppl. A):91-113.

Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pitchford, W.A. McLellan, and D.A. Pabst. 1993. Appearance of 

juvenile humpback whales feeding in the nearshore waters of Virginia. Marine Mammal Science 

9(3):309-315.

Szymanski, M.D., D.E. Bain, K. Kiehl, S. Pennington, S. Wong, and K.R. Henry. 1999. Killer whale 

(Orcinus orca) hearing: Auditory brainstem response and behavioral audiograms. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 106(2):1134-1141.

Tavolga, W.N. and J. Wodinsky. 1963. Auditory capacities in fishes: Pure tone thresholds in nine 

species of marine teleosts. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 126:177-240.

Taylor, J.C., J.M. Miller, L.J. Pietrafesa, D.A. Dickey, and S.W. Ross. 2010. Winter winds and river 

discharge determine juvenile southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) recruitment and 

distribution in North Carolina estuaries. Journal of Sea Research 64:15-25.

Tenghamn, R. 2005. PGS electrical marine vibrator. PGS Tech Link 5(11):1-4. 

Tenghamn, R. 2006. An electrical marine vibrator with flextensional shell. Exploration Geophysics 

37(4):286-291.

Tenghamn, R. 2010. Vibroseis technology. In: Weilgart, L.S., ed. Report of the Workshop on 

Alternative Technologies to Seismic Airgun Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration and Their Potential 

for Reducing Impacts on Marine Mammals, Monterey, CA, 31 August – 1 September 2009. Okeanos 

- Foundation for the Sea, Auf der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. Pp. 23-24. Internet website: 

http://www.okeanos-foundation.org/assets/Uploads/Airgun.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Tenore, K.R. 1979. Macroinfaunal benthos of South Atlantic/Georgia Bight. In: Texas Instruments, 

Inc. South Atlantic benchmark program: Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) environmental studies. 

Volume 3: Results of studies of Georgia Bight of North Atlantic Ocean. Contract No. AA551-

CT7-2. Pp. 252-276. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4453.pdf. 

Accessed August 17, 2011.

Tenore, K.R. 1985. Seasonal changes in soft bottom macroinfauna of the US South Atlantic Bight. In: 

Atkinson, L.P., D.W. Menzel, and K.A. Bush, eds. Oceanography of the southeastern U.S. 

continental shelf. Pp. 130-140. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.

Terhune, J.M. 1999. Pitch separation as a possible jamming-avoidance mechanism in underwater calls of 

bearded seals Erignathus barbatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1025-1034.

Thayer, V.G., A.J. Read, and A.S. Fridlaender. 2003. Reproductive seasonality of western Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins off North Carolina, USA. Marine Mammal Science 19(4):617-629.

The Royal Society. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Royal 

Society, Policy Document 12/05. Internet website: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/

Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2005/9634.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2012. 

Thode, A.M., G.L. D'Spain, and W.A. Kuperman. 2000. Matched-field processing, source signature 

recovery, and geoacoustic inversion of blue whale vocalizations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 107:1286-1300.

Thode, A., D.K. Mellinger, S. Stienessen, A. Martinez, and K. Mullin. 2002. Depth-dependent acoustic 

features of diving sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 112(1):308-321.
References Cited 6-59

Thomas, J.A. and C.W. Turl. 1990. Echolocation characteristics and range detection threshold of a false 

killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). In: Thomas, J.A. and R.A. Kastelein, eds. Sensory abilities of 

cetaceans – laboratory and field evidence. New York, NY: Plenum. Pp. 321-334. 

Thompson, P.O., L.T. Findley, and O. Vidal. 1992. 20-Hz pulses and other vocalizations of fin whales, 

Balaenoptera physalus, in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 92:3051-3057.

Thompson, T.J., H.E. Winn, and P.J. Perkins. 1979. Mysticete Sounds, pp. 403–431. In: Winn, H.E. 

and B.L. Olla, eds. Behavior of marine animals, Vol. 3: Cetaceans. New York, NY: Plenum.

Thomson, D.H. and W.J. Richardson. 1995. Marine mammal sounds, pp. 159-204. In: 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, eds. Marine mammals and 

noise. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Thrive in North Carolina. 2011. NC offshore wind energy. Potential development areas map. May 6,

2011. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/

NCOffshoreWindEnergy.aspx. Accessed September 2, 2011.

Tollit, D.J., S.P.R. Greenstreet, and P.M. Thompson. 1997. Prey selection by harbor seals, Phoca 

vitulina, in relation to variation in prey abundance. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:1508-1518. 

Todd, S., P. Stevick, J. Lien, F. Marques, and D. Ketten. 1996. Behavioral effects of exposure to 

underwater explosions in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Canadian Journal of Zoology

74:1661-1672.

TRC Environmental Corporation. 2011. Prehistoric site potential and historic shipwrecks on the Atlantic 

outer continental shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Atlantic OCS Region, Herndon, VA. 286 pp.

Tremel, D.P., J.A. Thomas, K.T. Ramirez, G.S. Dye, W.A. Bachman, A.N. Orban, and K.K. Grimm. 

1998. Underwater hearing sensitivity of a Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens. 

Aquatic Mammals 24:63-69.

Tucholke, B.E. 1987. Submarine geology. In: Milliman, J.D. and W.R. Wright, eds. The marine 

environment of the U.S. Atlantic continental slope and rise. Boston/Woods Hole, MA: Jones and 

Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Pp. 56-113. 

Turner, S.J., S.F. Thrush, J.E. Hewitt, V.J. Cummings, and G. Funnell. 1999. Fishing impacts and the 

degradation or loss of habitat structure. Fisheries Management and Ecology 6:401-420.

Turnpenny, A.W.H. and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. The effects on marine fish, diving mammals and birds of 

underwater sound generated by seismic surveys. Fawley Aquatic Research laboratories Ltd. 

FCR 089/94. October 1994. 40 pp. 

Tyack, P.L. 2008. Implications for marine mammals of large-scale changes in the marine acoustic 

environment. Journal of Mammalogy 89(3):549-558.

Tyack, P.L., M. Johnson, N.A. Soto, A. Sturlese, and P.T. Madsen. 2006. Extreme diving of beaked 

whales. The Journal of Experimental Biology 209:4238-4253. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. American community survey 2009. Internet website: http://

www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/data_main/. Last updated August 11, 2011. 

Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Census of population 2000 and 2010. Internet website: http://

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011. Gross domestic product by state and 

metropolitan area. Internet website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Last updated August 9, 

2011. Accessed August 24, 2011.
6-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Data Buoy Center. 2011. Can you describe the moored buoys. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Data Buoy Center. Internet website: 

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/hull.shtml. Accessed August 29, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Draft recovery plan for the 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Silver Spring, MD. 105 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_humpback.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Killer whale (Orcinus orca), western 

North Atlantic stock. Stock assessment, July 1995. Silver Spring, MD. 2 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm213/pdfs/killer.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998a. Recovery plan for the blue whale 

(Balenoptera musculus). Silver Spring, MD. 42 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

pdfs/recovery/whale_blue.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998b. Final recovery plan for the 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team 

for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 104 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_shortnose.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Cruise results. Summer Atlantic 

Ocean marine mammal survey. NOAA Ship Oregon II cruise 236 (99- 05), 4 August - 30 September 

1999. Available from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, MS.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Status review of smalltooth sawfish 

(Pristis pectinata). December 2000. 71 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

statusreviews/smalltoothsawfish.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Cruise results. Mid-Atlantic 

cetacean survey. NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter cruise GU-02-01, 6 February - 8 April 2002. 

Available from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Pascagoula, MS.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Taking marine mammals incidental 

to conducting oil and gas exploration activities in the Gulf of Mexico. Federal Register 

68:9991-9996.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Recovery plan for the North Atlantic 

right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Silver Spring, MD. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_right_northatlantic.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. FEIS report – economic analysis for 

the final environmental impact statement of the North Atlantic Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction 

Strategy. Prepared by Nathan Associates, Inc., Arlington, VA for U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 

Resources, Silver Spring, MD. 179 pp.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009a. Final Amendment 1 to the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Essential Fish Habitat. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public 

Document. 395 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH//Final/

FEIS_Amendment_Total.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009b. Smalltooth sawfish recovery plan 

(Pristis pectinata). Prepared by the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team for the U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/smalltoothsawfish.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.
References Cited 6-61

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009c. Fishing communities of the United 

States, 2006: Economics and sociocultural status and trends series. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-98. 84 pp. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/

fisheries_communities_2006.html. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009d. Environmental assessment,

regulatory impact review, and final Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis for the final pelagic longline 

take reduction plan. Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, FL. 

January 2009. Pp. 48. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/mm/Final%20EA,%20RIR,

%20FRFA%20(signed2).pdf. Accessed January 21, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010a. Final recovery plan for the fin 

whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Silver Spring, MD. 121 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/finwhale.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010b. Final recovery plan for the sperm 

whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Silver Spring, MD. 165 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/final_sperm_whale_recovery_plan_21dec.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010c. Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 

pectinata Latham) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, FL. 

51 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/smalltoothsawfish_

5yearreview.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010d. HMS commercial compliance 

guide for complying with the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish regulations. Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Division. Silver Spring, MD. 43 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Compliance_Guide/Comm/Comm_Compliance_

Guide_Total.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010e. Guide to the Atlantic large whale 

take reduction plan. December 2010. Internet website: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/plan/

ALWTRPGuide.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/. Updated July 18, 2011. 

Accessed August 4, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. Whalewatching guidelines for the 

northeast region including the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/education/viewing_northeast.pdf. No post date. Accessed October 24, 

2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011c. Southeast region marine mammal 

and turtle viewing guidelines. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/education/southeast/

guidelines.htm. No post date. Accessed October 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011d. FishWatch - wreckfish (Polyprion 

americanus). Internet website: http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/wreckfish/

species_pages/wreckfish.htm. Updated May 3, 2011. Accessed August 17, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011e. Status of marine mammals. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/#status. Last updated August 15, 

2011. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011f. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus). Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/

bottlenosedolphin.htm. Last updated August 16, 2011. Accessed August 19, 2011.
6-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011g. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas). 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm. Last updated August 15, 

2011. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011h. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta 

caretta). Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm. Last 

updated August 15, 2011. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011i. Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys 

kempii). Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kempsridley.htm. Last 

updated August 15,2011. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011j. Office of Protected Resources: 

Glossary. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm#. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011k. Commercial fishery landings. 

NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/

st1/commercial/index.html. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011l. Recreational fisheries. NOAA 

Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/

recreational/index.html. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011m. 2011 Status of U.S. fisheries: 

Second quarter update. NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2011/second/

MapOverfishedStocksCY_Q2_2011.pdf. Accessed on 20 August 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011n. Smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/criticalhabitat/smalltoothsawfish.pdf. Accessed 

August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013a. Annual commercial landing 

statistics. NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology. Internet website: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index. 

Accessed November 2, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013b. Recreational fisheries. NOAA 

Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology. Internet website: http://

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/access-data/run-a-data-query/queiries/index. Accessed 

September 4, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas. 

Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 52 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_green_atlantic.pdf. Accessed August 19, 

2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for U.S. leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 65 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_leatherback_atlantic.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery plan for hawksbill turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic 

Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 52 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_hawksbill_atlantic.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.
References Cited 6-63

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998a. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 97 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_green_eastpacific.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998b. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the leatherback turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 76 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_leatherback_pacific.pdf. Accessed 

October 6, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007a. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-year review: Summary and 

evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 105 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/greenturtle_5yearreview.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007b. Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 93 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/hawksbill_5yearreview.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007c. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 81 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/leatherback_5yearreview.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea 

turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_loggerhead_atlantic.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and SEMARNAT. 2010. Draft bi-national recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii), second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

174 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_kempsridley_draft2.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-national recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii), second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

156 pp. + apps.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999. Environmental 

review procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Internet website: 

http://training.fws.gov/EC/Resources/ES_Listing_and_Candidate_Assessment/ESA%20Folder/NOA

A%20nepa.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2012. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Fact sheet: Small 

diesel spills (500-5,000 gallons). NOAA Scientific Support Team, Hazardous Materials Response 

and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. 2 pp. 

Internet website: http://archive.orr.noaa.gov/book_shelf/974_diesel.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Interagency report 

on marine debris sources, impacts, strategies and recommendations. Silver Spring, MD. 62 pp.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Compliance guide 

for right whale ship strike reduction rule (50 CFR 224.105). Internet website: http://

www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/doc/compliance_guide.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 5, 2011.
6-64 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Mapping cetaceans 

and sound: Modern tools for ocean management. Final Symposium Report of a Technical Workshop 

held May 23-24 in Washington, DC. 83 pp. Internet website: http://cetsound.noaa.gov. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. National Marine 

Protected Areas Center: List of national system sites. 2 pp. Internet website: 

http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/nationalsystem/nationalsystemlist/. Accessed October 22, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2011. Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary, final environmental impact statement, sanctuary research area designation. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. Internet website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/management/research/

pdfs/grnmsresearchareafeis.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2010. Creating an offshore wind industry in the United States: A strategic work 

plan for the United States Dept. of Energy, Fiscal Years 2011 – 2015. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program. Internet website: 

http://www.environmentalandenergylawblog.com/uploads/file/WindStrategicPlan.pdf. Posted 

September 22, 2010. Accessed August 4, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2011. Net generation from other renewables by state by sector. Internet website: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/at_a_glance/gen_tabs.html. Electricity Generation. 

Updated December 27, 2010. Accessed January 18, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2012a. Oil: Crude and petroleum products explained, oil imports and exports - 

Basics. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_imports. 

Updated May 1, 2012. Accessed October 1, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2012b. Natural gas imports, exports, and net imports, 1949-2011. 2011 Annual 

Energy Review, Table 6.3. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf. 

Updated September 27, 2012. Accessed October 1, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2013. Natural gas consumption by end use. Internet website: http://

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm. Updated September 30, 2013. Accessed 

October 1, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2010. Deepwater port applications. Internet 

website: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5225/dwp.asp. Last updated April 19, 2010. 

Accessed September 2, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2011a. Ballast water management. Internet 

website: https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/channelView.do?channelId=-18366&channel

Page=%2Fep%2Fchannel%2Fdefault.jsp&pageTypeId=13489&BV_SessionID=@@@@209770312

4.1377549297@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccadfkkigkdlmcfngcfkmdfhfdfgn.0. Accessed August 30, 

2011.

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2011b. Oil spills in U.S. water -- number and 

volume: 2000 to 2009. U.S. Coast Guard, pollution incidents in and around U.S. waters, a spill 

release compendium: 1969-2004, and 2004-2009: U.S. Coast Guard Marine Information for Safety 

and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system based on an April 2009 data extraction. Internet website: 

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0382.xls. Accessed August 29, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Quarterly census of employment and wages. 

Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn04.htm. Accessed August 23, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Labor force data. Not seasonally adjusted. 

Table 1. Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment by State and Metropolitan Area. Internet website: 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t01.htm. Last updated August 9, 2011. Accessed August 24,

2011.
References Cited 6-65

U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 2009. Wilmington Harbor Project. Internet website: 

http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Dredging/WilmingtonHarbor.aspx. Last 

updated August 23, 2013. Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2009. Memorandum of understanding between the Dept. of the Interior U.S. 

Minerals Management Service and the Dept. of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding 

implementation of Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds.” U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service and U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 13 p. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/

migratorybirds/Partnerships/MMS-FWS_MBTA_MOU_6-4-09.pdf Accessed December 14, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010a. Salazar divides MMS’s three conflicting missions. Press release. 

May 19, 2010. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Divides-MMSsThree-Conflicting-Missions.cfm. Accessed October 4, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010b. Change of the name of the Minerals Management Service to the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Secretarial Order No. 3302. 

Posted June 18, 2010. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule

=security/getfile&PageID=35872. Accessed October 4, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2011a. Strategic plan, $50 million in R&D funding, identified Wind Energy 

Areas will speed offshore wind energy development. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Internet website: 

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Chu-Announce-Major-Offshore-WindInitiatives.cfm. Accessed October 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2011b. Secretary Salazar, Assistant Secretary echo hawk launch 

comprehensive Tribal consultation policy. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Press release. Internet website: 

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Secretary-Salazar-Assistant-Secretary-Echo-Hawk-LaunchComprehensive-Tribal-Consultation-Policy.cfm. February 16, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2013. Guidelines for providing benthic habitat survey information for 

renewable energy development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585. 

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Regulatory_Information/H

abitat%20Guidelines.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981. South Atlantic OCS area living marine 

resources study. Volume II: An investigation of live bottom habitats south of Cape Fear, North 

Carolina. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. 

Contract No. AA551-CT9-27. 328 pp. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/

ESPIS/4/4500.pdf. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011a. Summary of completed 

negotiated noncompetitive agreements by the MMS Marine Minerals Program (updated information 

to 2011 from MMP). Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Non-Energy-Minerals/MarineMineral-Projects.aspx. Last updated April 2008. Accessed October 3, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011b. Proposed outer continental 

shelf leasing program, 2012-2017. November 2011. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/

uploadedFiles/Proposed_OCS_Oil_Gas_Lease_Program_2012-2017.pdf. Accessed January 19, 

2012. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011c. Atlantic OCS well locations. 

Microsoft Excel file. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/

Resource-Evaluation/Geological-and-Geophysical-Data-Acquisition/GGData-Atlantic.aspx. 

Accessed August 25, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011d. Environmental Studies 

Program: Ongoing studies. Sub-seabed geologic carbon sequestration worldwide synthesis and best 

management practices. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/

Environmental_Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/National/NT10x32.pdf. Accessed September 6, 

2011.
6-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011e. Atlantic OCS lease status 

information. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/

Leasing/Regional-Leasing/Gulf-of-Mexico-Region/Lease-Sales/220/Virginia-Lease-Sale-220-

Information.aspx. Last updated October 1, 2010. Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011f. Sand and gravel program. 

Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Non-Energy-Minerals/Marine-Mineral-Projects.aspx. 

Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011g. Frequently asked questions for 

ancillary activities. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/

Plans/Ancillary-Activities-FAQ.aspx. Accessed January 31, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012a. State activities. Internet 

website: http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-State-Activities/. Accessed January 4, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012b. Guidelines for providing 

geological and geophysical, hazards, and archaeological information pursuant to 30 CFR 585. 

Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Regulatory-Information/

GGARCH.aspx. Accessed September 2, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012c. Commercial wind lease 

issuance and site characterization activities on the Atlantic outer continental shelf offshore New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia: Final environmental assessment. January 2012. OCS 

EIS/EA BOEM 2012-003. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/

Renewable_Energy_Program/Smart_from_the_Start/Mid-Atlantic_Final_EA_012012.pdf. Accessed 

January 25, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012d. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and 

gas lease sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222 − final supplemental environmental 

impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-058.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2013. Guidelines for providing benthic 

habitat survey information for renewable energy development on the Atlantic outer continental shelf 

pursuant to 30 CFR part 585. February 14, 2013. 8 pp. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/

uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Regulatory_Information/Habitat%20Guidelines.

pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 2011. Memorandum of agreement between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, “Environmental and NEPA.” 8 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies/

Partnerships/Environment_NEPA_MOA_signed.aspx. Accessed August 20, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 2012a. Joint NTL 2012-G01. Notice to lessees and operators (NTL) of Federal oil, 

gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the OCS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting. Internet website: http://

www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2012/2012-JOINT-G01-pdf.aspx. Accessed 

January 11, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 2012b. Joint NTL 2012-G02. Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, 

gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right of-way holders in the OCS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 

Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program. 

Internet website: http://www.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Notices-to-Lessees/2012/2012-

JOINT-G02-pdf.aspx. Accessed January 11, 2012.
References Cited 6-67

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010. 

Salazar announces revised OCS leasing program. Press release. Internet website: http://

www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Announces-Revised-OCS-Leasing-Program.cfm. Posted 

December 1, 2010. Accessed August 5, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011a. 

Commercial wind lease issuance and site characterization activities on the Atlantic outer continental 

shelf offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia: Draft environmental assessment. July 

2011. OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-037. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Non-EnergyMinerals/. Accessed September 2, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011b. 

Interagency coordination: Marine Minerals Program. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement. Internet website: http://pipeline.mms.gov/uploadedFiles/Pipeline/

Organization/OEMM/Leasing_Division/omm_ld_mmb__OrrASBPA.pps. Accessed September 2, 

2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011c. 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 

2011: Western Planning Area lease sale 218, final supplemental environmental impact statement. 

OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-034. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/BOEMNewsroom/Library/Publications/2011/2011-034-v1.aspx. Accessed September 6, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. 2012. BSEE NTL 

2012-G01. Notice to lessees and operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline 

right of-way holders in the OCS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Marine trash and debris awareness 

and elimination. Internet website: http://www.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Notices-toLessees/2012/2012-BSEE-G01-pdf.aspx. Accessed January 11, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic 

Coast population. Revised recovery plan. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Hadley, MA. 236 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/960502.pdf. 

Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) northeastern 

population recovery plan, first update. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, 

MA. 75 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/981105.pdf. Accessed 

August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan – 

the reptiles. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. 16 pp.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida manatee recovery plan (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris), third revision. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast 

Region, Atlanta, GA. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/011030.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) 

5-year review: Summary and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological Services Office, Jacksonville, Florida and Caribbean Field 

Office, Boquerón, Puerto Rico. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/

doc1042.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, 

VA. 87 pp. Internet website: http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/1404. 

Accessed August 22, 2011.
6-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-year 

review: Summary and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast 

Region, Hadley, Massachusetts and Midwest Region, East Lansing, MI. Internet website: http://

ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3009.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Caribbean roseate tern and north Atlantic 

roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, 

Boquerón, Puerto Rico and Northeast Region, New England Field Office, Concord, NH. September 

2010. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3588.pdf. Accessed 

August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Species assessment and listing priority 

assignment form for the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/

candidate/assessments/2010/r5/B0DM_V01.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010c. Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa): Spotlight 

species action plan. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, NJ and U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. Internet website: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3265.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. 

Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/archiecarr/. Accessed October 26, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Species report. Internet website: http://

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?groups=B&listingType=L&mapstatus=1. Last updated 

August 22, 2011. Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011c. Species profile: Piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus). Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=

B079. Last updated August 22, 2011. Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011d. Species profile: Roseate tern (Sterna

dougallii dougallii). Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/

speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07O. Last updated August 22, 2011. Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011e. Species profile cahow (Pterodroma cahow) 

listing Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking (endangered species conservation), April 14, 

1970, 35 FR 6069. Updated August 16, 2011. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/

speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B015. Accessed August 16, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011f. Internet website: Welcome to the National 

Wildlife Refuge system. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/. Last updated June 29, 2011. Accessed 

August 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011g. Wildlife and habitat management. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/pdfs/factsheets/FactSheetWildHab.pdf. Accessed August 24, 

2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 

2013. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

FHW/11-NAT (RV). 172 pp.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 1998. North Carolina/Minerals Management 

Service Technical Workshop on Manteo Unit Exploration. February 4-5, 1998. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report 

MMS 98-0024. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3225.pdf. 
References Cited 6-69

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 1999. Use of offshore sand resources for 

beach and coastal restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, VA. OCS Study 

MMS 99-0036. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Non-Energy-Minerals/1999-036.aspx. 

Accessed September 2, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2004. Geological and geophysical exploration 

for mineral resources on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf: final programmatic 

environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2004-054.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2005. NTL 2005-G07. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Archaeology resource surveys and reports. Internet 

website: http://www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2005/05-G07.aspx. Accessed 

January 23, 2012. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Programmatic environmental impact 

statement for alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on the 

outer continental shelf, final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA 2007-046. Internet website: 

http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Regulatory-Information/Guide-To-EIS.aspx. 

Accessed September 6, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2007b. NTL 2007-G03. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Marine trash and debris awareness and elimination. 

Internet website: http://www.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Notices-to-Lessees/2012/2012-

BSEE-G01-pdf.aspx. Accessed November 2, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2007c. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2007-2012. Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area 

Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222 – final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2007-018. April 2007. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/EnvironmentalStewardship/Environmental-Assessment/NEPA/BOEM-2012-019_v1.aspx. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2008a. NTL 2008-G05. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Shallow hazards program. Internet website: 

http://www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2008/08-g05.aspx. Accessed January 23, 

2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2008b. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2009-2012; Central Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; Western Planning Area Sales 

210, 215, and 218 – final supplemental environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2008-041.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2009a. NTL 2009-G39. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Biologically sensitive underwater features and areas. 

Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2009/09-G39.aspx. 

Accessed January 11, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2009b. NTL 2009-G40. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Deepwater benthic communities. Internet website: 

http://www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2009/09-G40.aspx. Accessed January 11, 

2012.
6-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2009c. NTL 2009-G06. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Military Warning and Water Test Areas. Internet 

website: http://www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2009/09-g06.aspx. Accessed 

January 24, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2009d. Draft proposed outer continental shelf 

(OCS) oil and gas leasing program, 2010-2015. Considering comments of Governors, Section 18 

Factors and OCS Alternative Energy Opportunities. 149 pp. Posted January 2009. Internet website: 

http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/DPP_FINALpdf.aspx. Accessed August 5, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2009e. NTL 2009-G34. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) of Federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Ancillary activities. Internet website: 

http://www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2009/09-G34.aspx. Accessed January 23, 

2012. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2009f. Issuance of leases for wind resource 

data collection on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Delaware and New Jersey: environmental 

assessment. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2009-025. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/

FinalEA_MMS2009-025_IP_DE_NJ_EA.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2007. Marine resources assessment for the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the 

Dept. of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, VA. Contract #N62470-02-D-9997, 

CTO 0030. Prepared by Geo-Marine, Inc., Hampton, VA.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2008. Final – Atlantic fleet active sonar training environmental impact 

statement/overseas environmental impact statement. December 2008.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2012. Draft environmental impact statement/overseas environmental impact 

statement for Atlantic fleet training and testing. Internet website: http://aftteis.com/

DocumentsandReferences/AFTTDocuments/DraftEISOEIS(May2012).aspx. Accessed January 31, 

2013.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 2004. Visual flight rules (VFR) flight 

near noise-sensitive areas. Advisory Circular No. 91-36D. Internet website: 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2091-36C/

$FILE/ac91-36c.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Maritime Administration. 2011a. Deepwater port licensing program. 

Approved applications and operational facilities. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/

ports_landing_page/deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_current_ports/dwp_current_ports.htm. Accessed 

August 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Maritime Administration. 2011b. Vessel calls snapshot, 2010. 10 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf. 

Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Development document for effluent limitations guidelines 

and new source performance standards for the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction point 

source category, final. EPA 821-R93-003. January 1993. Internet website: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/

ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20002XFX.txt. Accessed September 2, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Development document for final effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-aqueous drilling fluids in 

the oil and gas extraction point source category. EPA 821-B-00-013. December 2000. Internet 

website: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/upload/O-G_SBF_DD_Final_

2000.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2011. 
References Cited 6-71

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) general permit no. GEG460000 for offshore oil and gas activities in the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/permits/documents/final_r4_

ocspermit_03152010.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. Ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDS) in the 

southeast. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/oceans/sites.html. Last updated 

February 9, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. Ocean dumping in the southeast. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/oceans/. Last updated April 28, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. National Coastal Condition Report IV. 

EPA 842-R-10-003. April 2002. 298 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/nccr. Accessed 

September 30, 2013. 

U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task Force. 2010. U.S. extended continental shelf project: 

Establishing the full extent of the continental shelf of the United States. Posted December 2010. 

Internet website: http://continentalshelf.gov/media/ECSposterDec2010.pdf. Accessed August 5, 

2011.

U.S. Fleet Forces. 2009. Virginia Capes Range Complex, final environmental impact statement/overseas 

environmental impact assessment. Volume 1. Figure 3.1-1. Internet website: http://64.78.11.86/

uxofiles/enclosures/VACAPES_FEIS_Vol_1_Chapter3.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2011.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. A 

state of knowledge report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Internet website: http://

downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed September 6, 

2011.

U.S. House of Representatives. 2010. Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010. 11th Congress, 1st Session, Conference Report 111-316. 252 pp.

U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research. 2009. Final workshop proceedings for effects of stress on marine 

mammals exposed to sound. Arlington, VA, 4-5 November 2009. 59 pp.

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Committee. 2000. Bird conservation region 

descriptions: A supplement to the North American Bird Conservation Initiative Bird Conservation 

Regions Map. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Bird Habitat 

Conservation, Arlington, VA, USA. 44 pp. Internet website: http://www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/

bcrdescrip.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2011.

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Committee. 2009. The state of the birds: United 

States of America, 2009. U.S. Dept. of Interior: Washington, D.C., USA. 36 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2009/pdf_files/State_of_the_Birds_2009.pdf. Accessed August 22, 

2011.

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Committee. 2011. The state of the birds: 2011 report 

on public lands and waters-United States of America. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, DC, USA. 48 pp. Internet website: http://www.stateofthebirds.org/

State%20of%20the%20Birds%202011.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2011.

Uchupi, E. 1968. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States – physiography. 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-D. 30 pp.

Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of underwater sound. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 423 pp.

van Dam, R.P. and C.E. Diez. 1997. Diving behavior of immature hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) in a Caribbean reef habitat. Coral Reefs 16:133-138. Internet website: http://

www.widecast.org/What/Country/PuertoRico/Docs/vanDam%26Diez_%281997%29_Hawksibll_

dive_behavior_in_Caribbean_reef_habitat.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.
6-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt, and N. Nicholson. 1987. Effects of a research trawl on a hard-bottom 

assemblage of sponges and corals. Fisheries Research 5(1):39-54.

Van Dolah, R.F., P.P. Maier, G.R. Sedberry, C.A. Barans, F.M. Idris, and V.J. Henry. 1994. Distribution 

of bottom habitats on the continental shelf off South Carolina and Georgia. Final report submitted to 

the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program, South Atlantic Committee. Internet 

website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/science/publications/pdfs/i-50.pdf. 

Van Dover, C.L., P. Aharon, J.M. Bernhard, E. Caylord, M. Doerries, W. Flickinger, W. Gilhooly, 

S.K. Goffredi, K.E. Knick, S.A. Mackod, S. Rapoport, E.C. Raulfs, C. Ruppel, J.L. Salerno, 

R.D. Seitz, B.K. Sen Gupta, T. Shank, M. Turnipseed, R. Vrijenhoek. 2003. Blake Ridge methane 

seeps: Characterization of a soft-sediment, chemosynthetically based ecosystem. Deep-Sea 

Research I 50(2003):281-300.

van Houtan, K.S. and O.L. Bass. 2007. Stormy oceans are associated with declines in sea turtle hatching. 

Current Biology 17(15):590-591.

van Waerebeek, K., A.N. Baker, F. Félix, J. Gedamke, M. Iñiguez, G.P. Sanino, E. Secchi, D. Sutaria, 

A. van Helden, and Y. Wang. 2007. Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large 

whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an initial assessment. Latin American Journal of Aquatic 

Mammals 6(1):43-69.

Vasconcelos, R.O. and F. Ladich. 2008. Development of vocalization, auditory sensitivitiy and acoustic 

communication in the Lusitanian toadfish Halobatrachus didactyllus. Journal of Experimental 

Biology 211:502-509.

Vasconcelos, R. O., M.P. Amorim, and F. Ladich. 2007. Effects of ship noise on the detectability of 

communication signals in the Lusitania toadfish. J. Exp. Biol.210:2104-2112.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2000. Environmental survey of potential sand resource sites 

offshore Delaware and Maryland. Final report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, Herndon, VA. Contract 

No. 1435-01-97-CT-30853.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 2011. Artificial reef map. Internet website: 

http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/vsrfdf/reef.shtm. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Virginia Port Authority. 2007. Virginia Port Authority Strategic Plan. September 26, 2007. Internet 

website: http://www.portofvirginia.com/media/441/strategic_plan_2009.pdf. Accessed August 24,

2011.

Virginia Port Authority. 2008. Economic impact study, Port of Virginia. Internet website: http://

www.portofvirginia.com/media/16804/finalvaeconimpactstudywithcover.pdf. Accessed August 24, 

2011.

Virginia Port Authority. 2011. The Port of Virginia. Internet website: http://www.portofvirginia.com/. 

Accessed August 24, 2011.

Walker, L., G. Potter, M. Jenkerson, and J.M. Rodriguez. 1996. The acoustic output of a marine vibrator. 

SEG Annual Meeting Expanded Technical Program Abstracts with Biographies 66:17-20.

Walsh, H.J., K.E. Marancik, and J.A. Hare. 2006. Juvenile fish assemblages collected on unconsolidated 

sediments of the southeast United States continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin 104:256-277. 

Wang, J.Y. 2002. Stock Identity, pp. 1189-1192. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, 

eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 1,414 pp.

Warchol, M.E. 2011. Sensory regeneration in the vertebrate inner ear: Differences at the levels of cells 

and species. Hear. Res. 273(1-2):72-79.

Ward, J., S. Jarvis, D. Moretti, R. Morrissey, N. DiMarzio, M. Johnson, P. Tyack, L.Thomas, and 

T. Marques. 2011. Beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) passive acoustic detection in increasing 

ambient noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(2):662-669.
References Cited 6-73

Ward-Geiger, L.I., G.K. Silber, R.D. Baumstark, and T.L. Pulfer. 2005. Characterization of ship traffic 

in right whale critical habitat. Coastal Management 33:263-278.

Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson, and 

D. Mackie. 2001. Effects of seismic airguns on marine fish. Continental Shelf 

Research 21:1005-1027.

Warham, J. 1990. Petrels: Their ecology and breeding systems. London: Academic Press. 440 pp.

Warham, J. 1996. The behavior, population biology, and physiology of the petrels. London: Academic 

Press. 613 pp.

Waring, G.T., C.P. Fairfield, C.M. Ruhsam and M. Sano. 1992. Cetaceans associated with Gulf Stream 

features off the Northeastern USA Shelf. ICES [Int. Counc. Explor. Sea] C.M. 1992/N:12. 29 pp.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, eds. 2010. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2010. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE-219. 598 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219/tm219.pdf. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, eds. 2012. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico marine mammal stock assessments -- 2011. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NE-221. 319 pp. Internet website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. 

Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic disturbance. Mar. Tech. Soc. J. 37:6-15. 

Waters, M.R., S.L. Forman, T.W. Stafford Jr., and J. Foss. 2009. Geoarchaeological investigations at the 

Topper and Big Pine Tree Sites, Allendale County, South Carolina. Journal of Archaeological 

Science 36:1300-1311.

Watkins, W.A., P. Tyack, K.E. Moore, and J.E. Bird. 1987. The 20-Hz signal of finback whales 

Balaenoptera physalus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82:1901-1912.

Watkins, W.A., M.A. Daher, K.M. Fristrup, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 1994. Fishing and acoustic 

behavior of Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) near Dominica, southeast Caribbean. Caribbean 

Journal of Science 30:76-82.

Watkins, W.A., M.A. Daher, A. Samuels, and G.P. Damon. 1997. Observations of Peponocephala 

electra, the melon-headed whale, in the Southeastern Caribbean. Caribbean Journal of Science

33:34-40.

Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to 

forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology 12(6):1180-1197.

Weaver, D.C. and G.R. Sedberry. 2001. Trophic subsidies at the Charleston Bump: Food web structure 

of reef fishes on the continental slope of the southeastern United States. In: G.R. Sedberry, ed. 

Island in the Stream: Oceanography and Fisheries of the Charleston Bump. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 25. Bethesda, MD. Pp. 137-152. 

Webb, J.F., R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. 2008. Fish bioacoustics. New York, NY: Springer 

Science + Business Media, LLC.

Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry, and H-R Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, 

duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309:1844-1846. 

Weilgart, L.S., ed. 2010. Report of the Workshop on Alternative Technologies to Seismic Airgun 

Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration and their Potential for Reducing Impacts on Marine Mammals. 

Monterey, California, USA, 31st August - 1st September, 2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, 

Auf der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. 29 pp. Internet website: http://www.okeanosfoundation.org/assets/Uploads/Airgun.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.
6-74 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Weilgart, L.S. 2012. Alternative quieter technologies to seismic airguns for collecting geophysical data. 

In: Abstracts, 3rd International Conference on Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2012, 

18-22 June 2012, Straslund, Germany. Pp. 17-18. Internet website: http://www.bfn.de/habitatmare/

de/downloads/conference-pmce-2012/PMCE2012_Abstracts.pdf. 

Weir, C.J. 2007. Observations of marine turtles in relation to seismic airgun sound off Angola. Marine 

Turtle Newsletter 116:17-20.

Weiser, M. 2010. ‘Bubble curtain’ planned for slough to steer salmon to safety. The Sacramento Bee. 

December 7, 2010.

Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2006. Intra-annual loggerhead and green turtle spatial 

nesting patterns. Southeastern Naturalist 5(3):453-462.

Wenner, C.A. 1983. Species associations and day night variability of trawl caught fishes from the 

inshore sponge coral habitat South Atlantic Bight. Fishery Bulletin 81(3):537-552. 

Wenner, C.A. and G.R. Sedberry. 1989. Species composition, distribution, and relative abundance of 

fishes in the coastal habitat off the southeastern United States. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Report NMFS 79. 49 pp.

Wenner, C.A., C.A. Barans, B.W. Stender, and F.H. Berry. 1979. Results of MARMAP otter trawl 

investigations in the South Atlantic Bight IV: Winter-early Spring, 1975. South Carolina Marine 

Resources Center Technical Report No. 44. 59 pp.

Wenner, C.A., C.A. Barans, B.W. Stender, and F.W. Berry. 1980. Results of MARMAP otter trawl 

investigations on the South Atlantic Bight V: Summer 1975. South Carolina Marine Resources 

Center Technical Report No. 45. 57 pp.

Wenner, E.L. and C.A. Barans. 1990. In situ estimates of density of golden crab, Chaceon fenneri, from 

habitats on the continental slope, southeastern U.S. Bulletin of Marine Science 46(3):723-734. 

Internet website: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/1990/00000046/

00000003/art00011. No post date. Accessed August 17, 2011.

Wenner, E.L. and C.A. Barans. 2001. Benthic habitats and associated fauna of the upper- and 

middle-continental slope near the Charleston Bump, pp 161-176. In: G.R. Sedberry, ed. Island in 

the stream: Oceanography and fisheries of the Charleston Bump. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 25, Bethesda, MD.

Wenner, E.L., D.M. Knott, R.F. Van Dolah, and V.G. Burrell, Jr. 1983. Invertebrate communities 

associated with hard-bottom habitats in the South Atlantic Bight. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science

17(2):143-158.

Wenner, E.L., P. Hinde, D. M. Knott, and R. F. Van Dolah. 1984. A temporal and spatial study of 

invertebrate communities associated with hard-bottom habitats in the South Atlantic Bight. U.S. 

Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 18. November 1984. Internet website: http://

spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr18opt.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2011.

West, P., K. Cieślik, S. Haider, A. Aziz Muhamad, S.K.Chandola, A. Harun. 2010. Evaluating low 

frequency passive seismic data against an exploration well program. SEG Denver 2010 Annual 

Meeting.

Wever, E.G. 1978. The reptile ear: Its structure and function. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press. 

Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm 

whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242:295-304. Internet website: http://

whitelab.biology.dal.ca/hw/Sperm_Population_Whitehead.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Whitehead, H., M. Dillon, S. Dufault, L. Weilgart, and J. Wright. 1998. Non-geographically based 

population structure of South Pacific sperm whales: Dialects, fluke-markings, and genetics. Journal

of Animal Ecology 67:253-262.
References Cited 6-75

Whitfield, P.E., T. Gardner, S.P. Vives, M.R. Gilligan, W.R. Courtenay, Jr., G.C. Ray, and J.A. Hare. 

2002. Biological invasion of the indo-pacific lionfish Pterois volitans along the Atlantic coast of 

North America. Marine Ecology Progress Series 235:289-297. Internet website: http://www.intres.com/articles/meps2002/235/m235p289.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2011.

Whitt, Amy D., Kathleen Dudzinski, and Jennifer R. Laliberté. 2013. North Atlantic right whale 

distribution and seasonal occurrence in nearshore waters off New Jersey, USA, and implications for 

management. Endangered Species Research 20:59-69.

Wiebe, P.H., E.H. Backus, R.H. Backus, D.A. Caron, P.M. Glibert, J.F. Grassle, K. Powers, and 

J.B. Waterbury. 1987. Biological oceanography. In: Milliman, J.D. and W.R. Wright, eds. The 

marine environment of the U.S. Atlantic continental slope and rise. Boston/Woods Hole, MA: Jones 

and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Pp. 186-193.

Wiese, F.K. and I.L. Jones. 2001. Experimental support for a new drift block design to assess seabird 

mortality from oil pollution. The Auk 118(4):1062-1068.

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. 

Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the North-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin

12:1285-1290.

Wigley, R.L. and R.B. Theroux. 1981. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States – 

Macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the Middle Atlantic Bight region – faunal composition and 

quantitative distribution. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-N. 198 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/classics/wigley1981/wigley1981.pdf. Accessed 

August 17, 2011.

Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. 2008. Technical Report: South Carolina State Ports Authority Economic 

Impact Study. Prepared for South Carolina State Ports Authority. Internet website: http://www.portof-charleston.com/About/statistics/Economic_Impact_2008.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2012. 

WildEarth Guardians. 2010. Petition to designate critical habitat for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii). Petition submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Interior, acting through the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Santa Fe, NM. 28 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/Critical_Habitat_Petition_Kemp_Ridley_Sea_

Turtle.pdf?docID=630&AddInterest=1103. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Wiley, D.N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford, and D.P. Gannon. 1995. Stranding and mortality of 

humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United States, 

1985-1992. Fishery Bulletin 93:196-205.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009a. Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior technical guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 72 pp.

Williams, R., D.E. Bain, J.K.B. Ford, and A.W. Trites. 2002a. Behavioural responses of killer whales to 

a “leapfrogging” vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4:305-310.

Williams, R., A. Trites, and D.E. Bain. 2002b. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to 

whale-watching boats: Opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of Zoology

(London) 256:255-270.

Williams, R., D.E. Bain, J.C. Smith, and D. Lusseau. 2009b. Effects of vessels on behaviour patterns of 

individual southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research 6:199-209.

Winn, H.E. and P.J. Perkins. 1976. Distributions and sounds of the minke whale, with a review of 

mysticete sounds. Cetology 19:1-12.

Winn, H.E. and N.E. Reichley. 1985. Humpback whale – Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781). 

In: Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 3: The sirenians and 

baleen whales. London and Orlando: Academic Press. Pp. 241-73. 
6-76 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Wirsing, A.J., M.R. Heithaus, A. Frid, and L.M. Dill. 2008. Seascapes of fear: Evaluating sublethal 

predator effects experienced and generated by marine mammals. Marine Mammal Science 24:1-15.

Witt, M.J., L.A. Hawkes, M.H. Godfrey, B.J. Godley, and A.C. Broderick. 2010a. Predicting the impacts 

of climate change on a globally distributed species: The case of the loggerhead turtle. Journal of 

Experimental Biology 213:901-911. Internet website: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/WittMJ_

2010_JExpBiol.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Witt, M.J., A. McGowan, J.M. Blumenthal, A.C. Broderick, S. Gore, D. Wheatley, J. White, and 

B.J. Godley. 2010b. Inferring vertical and horizontal movements of juvenile marine turtles from 

tim-depth recorders. Aquatic Biology 8:169-177.

Witzell, W. 1983. Synopsis of the biological data on the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata

(Linnaeus, 1766). FAO Fisheries Synopsis 137. 78 pp.

Wood, W.T. 2010. A deep water resonator seismic source. In: Weilgart, L.S., ed. Report of the 

Workshop on Alternative Technologies to Seismic Airgun Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

their Potential for Reducing Impacts on Marine Mammals. Monterey, California, 31 August – 

1 September, 2009. Okeanos - Foundation for the Sea, Auf der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. 

P. 21. Internet website: http://www.okeanos-foundation.org/assets/Uploads/Airgun.pdf. Accessed 

September 28, 2011.

Wood, W.T. and J.F. Gettrust. 2000. Deep-towed seismic investigations of methane hydrates. In: Paull, 

C.K. and W.P. Dillon, eds. Natural gas hydrates: Occurrence, distribution and detection. AGU 

Monograph Series, No. 124. AGU, Washington, D.C. Pp. 165-178. 

Wood, W.T., J.F. Gettrust, N.R. Chapman, G.D. Spence, and R.D. Hyndman. 2002. Decreased stability 

of methane hydrates in marine sediments owing to phase-boundary roughness. Nature 420:656-660.

Wood, W.T., J.F. Gettrust, and S.E. Spychalski. 2003. A new deep-towed, multi-channel seismic 

system. Sea Technology 44:44-49.

Wood, W.T., P.E. Hart, D.R. Hutchinson, N. Dutta, F. Snyder, R.B. Coffin, and J.F. Getrrust. 2008. Gas 

and gas hydrate distribution around seafloor seeps in Mississippi Canyon, Northern Gulf of Mexico, 

using multi-resolution seismic imagery. Marine and Petroleum Geology 25(9):952-959.

World Fishing Network. 2011. Georgia saltwater inshore/offshore fishing tournaments. Internet 

website: http://www.worldfishingnetwork.com/georgia-saltwater-inshoreoffshore-tournaments/. 

Accessed August 23, 2011.

World Port Source. 2011. Port of Jacksonville port detail. Internet website: http://

www.worldportsource.com/ports/USA_FL_Port_of_Jacksonville_225.php. Accessed August 24,

2011.

Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals 24:41-50.

Würsig, B., C.R. Greene, and T.A. Jefferson. 2000a. Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce 

underwater noise of percussive piling. Mar. Environ. Res. 49:79-93.

Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly. 2000b. The marine mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. 

College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. 232 pp.

Wyneken, J. and M. Salmon. 1992. Frenzy and post-frenzy swimming activity in loggerhead, green, and 

leatherback hatchling sea turtles. Copeia 1992:478-484.

Yelverton, J.T., D.R. Richmond, E.R. Fletcher, and R.K. Jones. 1973. Safe distances from underwater 

explosions for mammals and birds. AD-766 952. Prepared for Defense Nuclear Agency, 

Washington, DC. Internet website: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD766952&

Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.
References Cited 6-77

Yochem, P.K. and S. Leatherwood. 1985. Blue whale. In: Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison, eds. 

Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 3: The sirenians and baleen whales. New York, NY: Academic 

Press. Pp. 193-240.

Yost, W.A. 2000. Fundamentals of hearing: An introduction. New York, NY: Academic Press. 

Young, G.A. 1991. Concise methods for predicting the effects of underwater explosions on marine life. 

AD-A241-310. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Silver Spring, MD. Internet website: http://

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA241310&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf. Accessed 

August 5, 2011.

Yu, H.Y., H.K. Mok, R.C. Wei, and L.S. Chou. 2003. Vocalizations of a rehabilitated roughtoothed 

dolphin, Steno bredanensis. In: Abstracts, Fifteenth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, 183. Greensboro, NC.

Zeddies, D.G., R.R. Fay, M.D. Gray, P.W. Alderks, A. Acob, and J.A. Sisneros. 2012. Local acoustic 

particle motion guides sound-source localization behavior in the plainfin midshipman fish, 

Porichthys notatus. Journal of Experimental Biology 215:152-160. 

Zelick, R., D. Mann, and A.N. Popper. 1999. Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs. In: Fay, 

R.R. and A.N. Popper, eds. Comparative hearing: Fish and amphibians. New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. Pp. 363-411.

Zykov, M. 2013. Underwater sound modeling of low energy geophysical equipment. Operations. 

JASCO Document 00600, Version 1.0. Draft. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for 

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 50 pp.

Zykov, M. and J. MacDonnell. 2013. Sound source characterizations for the collaborative baseline 

survey offshore Massachusetts Final Report: Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and the R/V Small 

Research Vessel Experimental. JASCO Document 00413, Version 2.1. Technical report by JASCO 

Applied Sciences for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 55 pp.

CHAPTER 7 

 

PREPARERS

Preparers 7-3

7. PREPARERS

7.1. BOEM PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 

Preparers

Thomas Bjerstedt, Unit 1 Supervisor, Environmental Operations Section, Lead NEPA Coordinator

Michael Celata, Deputy Regional Supervisor

Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section

Agatha (Arie) Kaller, Supervisor, Biological Sciences Unit

Jill Lewandowski, Chief, Branch of Environmental Consultation

Lissa Lyncker, Unit 1 Supervisor, Environmental Assessment Section

Tershara Matthews, Unit 2 Supervisor, Environmental Assessment Section

Geoffrey Wikel, Chief, Branch of Environmental Consultation

Roger Amato, Geologist, Marine Minerals Scenario

Tamara Arzt, Environmental Protection Specialist, Protected Species

Perry Boudreaux, Assisting NEPA Coordinator, Biologist

Ronald Brinkman, Geophysicist, Technologies and Oil and Gas Scenario

Brian Cameron Jr., Environmental Scientist, CZMA

Deborah Epperson, Ecologist, BSEE

Donald (Tre) W. Glenn III, Marine Biologist, Protected Species

Andrea Heckman, Co-NEPA Coordinator, Environmental Scientist

Brian Hooker, Biologist, Renewable Energy Scenario

Rebecca Murphy, Geologist, Oil and Gas Scenario

Beth Nord, Lead NEPA Coordinator, Senior Environmental Scientist

Trevis Olivier, Co-NEPA Coordinator, Environmental Scientist

Cina Poyer, Geologist, Oil and Gas Scenario

Desray Reeb, Marine Biologist, Protected Species

Dominic Smith, Geologist, Oil and Gas Scenario

Kimberly Skrupky Warshaw, Marine Biologist, MMPA and Protected Species

Reviewers

Pat Adkins, Information Management Specialist

Kenneth Ashworth, Environmental Scientist

Bruce Baird, Biologist

Bob Cameron, Meteorologist 

Alicia Caporaso, Marine Archaeologist

Sindey Chaky, Social Scientist

Dennis Chew, Marine Biologist

Chris Dufore, Water Quality Specialist

Holli Ensz, Air Quality Specialist

Jeff S. Gleason, Biologist

Mary Greene, Solicitor’s Office

Larry M. Hartzog, Environmental Scientist

Chin Hua (Chester) Huang, Meteorologist

Jack Irion, Supervisor, Social Sciences Unit

Mark Jensen, Economist

Doug Jones, Marine Archaeologist

Stanley J. Labak, Marine Acoustician

Alexis Lugo-Fernandez, Oceanographer

Angel McCoy, Air Quality Specialist

Margaret Metcalf, Chief, Physical and Chemical Science Section
7-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Deborah H. Miller, Technical Editor

Megan Milliken, Environmental Protection Specialist

Michael D. Miner, Marine Minerals

David P. Moran, Biologist

Maureen M. Mulino, Marine Biologist

Michelle Nannen, Marine Biologist

Catherine A. Rosa, Environmental Protection Specialist

James Sinclair, Marine Biologist

Odin Smith, Solicitor’s Office

Cory Spiller, Solicitor’s Office

Sally Valdes, Biologist

7.2. CONTRACTOR PREPARERS

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

William R. Sloger, Jr. M.S. Environmental Studies, M.S. Civil 

Engineering, B.S. Civil Engineering; 

20 years of experience

Project Manager; Co-author 

Chapters 1,2, and 5, Appendices C 

and L

Kimberley R. Olsen B.S. Oceanographic Technology; 23 years 

of experience

Assistant Project Manager; 

Co-author Chapter 4 (Marine and 

Coastal Birds, Benthic 

Communities) and Appendices A, 

B, L, and M

Brian J. Balcom M.S. Marine Biology, B.S. Biology; 

29 years of experience

Lead Impacts Analyst; Co-author 

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 and 

Appendices L and M

Neal W. Phillips Ph.D. Ecology, M.S. Marine Studies,

B.S. Biological Sciences; 28 years of 

experience

Scientific Editor; Co-author 

Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 and 

Appendices A, C, and L

Robert B. Cady M.S. Oceanography, B.S. Marine Biology; 

15 years of experience

Co-author Chapter 4 (Other Marine 

Uses) and Appendix B

Debra K. Fawcett M.S. Marine Science, B.A. Biology; 

11 years of experience

Co-author Chapter 4 (Benthic 

Communities)

Melanie L. Cahill B.S. Marine Sciences, 10 years of 

experience

Co-author Appendix L

Luis M. Lagera, Jr. Ph.D. Environmental Sciences (Ecology), 

M.S. Biological Sciences, B.S. Zoology; 20 

years of experience

Co-author Chapter 4 (Marine 

Protected Areas) and Appendix F 

David B. Snyder M.S. Marine Biology and Ichthyology, 

B.S. Zoology; 27 years of experience

Co-author Chapter 4 (Fisheries and 

EFH, Threatened and Endangered 

Fish Species, Commercial Fisheries, 

Recreational Fisheries) and 

Appendices A, L, and M

Stephen T. Viada M.S. Biological Oceanography, 

B.S. Zoology; 27 years of experience

Co-author Chapter 4 (Marine 

Mammals, Sea Turtles, Marine and 

Coastal Birds) and Appendices A, 

L, and M

Kristen L. Metzger M.A. Library and Information Science, 

B.A. Library Science/Education; 36 years 

of experience

Administrative Record, Librarian

Keith B. VanGraafeiland B.S. Geography; 10 years of experience GIS Manager

Christopher L. Dean B.A. Geography; 7 years of experience GIS Specialist 

Kevin A. Noack M.S. Geographic Information Science, B.S. 

Geography and Economics, 1 year of 

experience

GIS Analyst

Melody B. Powell B.S. Zoology; 21 years of experience Senior Technical Editor
Preparers 7-5

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

Danielle Johnson B.S. Interdisciplinary Social Science; 

3 years of experience

Technical Editor

Pamela Jones B.A. Business; 16 years of experience Technical Editor

Natalie C. Kraft M.E.M. Coastal Environmental 

Management, B.S. Marine 

Science/Biology; 5 years of experience

Technical Editor

Karen Stokesbury 15 years of experience Lead Word Processor and 

Document Production Coordinator

Stephanie Urquhart 2 years of experience Word Processor and Document 

Production

Marine Acoustics, Inc.

Stanley J. Labak M.S. Ocean Engineering, B.S. Ocean 

Engineering; 33 years of experience

Acoustic Impact/Take Analysis; 

Co-author Appendix E

Kathleen J. Vigness-Raposa Ph.D. Landscape Ecology, M.S. Biological 

Oceanography, B.S. Education; 17 years of 

experience

Marine Biology; Marine Mammal 

Densities; Co-author Appendix A

Adam S. Frankel Ph.D. Oceanography, M.S. Zoology, 

B.S. Biology; 27 years of experience

Acoustic Propagation and 

AIM Modeling; Co-author 

Appendix E

SEARCH

Paul G. Sjordal M.A. Anthropology, B.A. Anthropology; 

12 years of experience

Principal Investigator; Co-author 

Chapter 4 (Archaeological 

Resources)

Jason M. Burns M.A. History/Historical Archaeology, B.A. 

Anthropology; 15 years of experience

Project Manager; Co-author 

Chapter 4 (Archeological 

Resources)

Jeffrey M. Enright M.A. Maritime History,

B.A. Anthropology; 14 years of experience

GIS Specialist; Co-author Chapter 4 

(Archaeological Resources)

ICF International, Inc.

Erin A. Healy M.S. Marine Science, 

B.A. Geology/Biology; 21 years of 

experience

Author Chapter 4 (Recreational 

Resources) 

Alex Uriarte Ph.D. Development Studies, 

M.S. Economics, B.A. Economics; 

13 years of experience

Author Chapter 4 (Human 

Resources and Land Use) 

JASCO

Mikhail Zykov Ph.D. Geophysics, M.S. Geology, 

B.S. Geology; 5 years of experience

Author Appendix D

Terry Deveau M.S. Acoustics, B.S. Mathematics; 

26 years of experience

Co-author Appendix D

Nicole Chorney B.S. Combined Honours Physics and 

Astronomy, Mathematics minor; 5 years of 

experience

Co-author/Technical Editor 

Appendix D

Southall Environmental Associates, Inc.

Brandon Southall Ph.D. Ocean Sciences, M.S. Marine 

Science, B.A. Environmental Biology, 

B.A. English; 17 years of experience

Author Appendix H

University of Maryland

Arthur Popper Ph.D. Biology, B.A. Biology; 35 years of 

experience

Author Appendix J

Virginia Wesleyan College

Soraya Moein Bartol Ph.D. Marine Science, M.S. Marine 

Science, B.A. Biology; 19 years of 

experience

Author Appendix I
7-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

Independent Consultant

Thomas Carlson Ph.D. Applied Acoustics/Bayesian 

Classification

Scientific Editor
CHAPTER 8 

 

GLOSSARY

Glossary 8-3

8. GLOSSARY

Acoustics: The scientific study of sound, 

especially of its generation, transmission, 

and reception.

Acoustic backscatter device: Instrument that 

uses sound waves to collect measurement 

data to generate images (e.g., of the 

seafloor).

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM©): An 

animal movement and acoustics model that 

integrates information on the estimated

propagation of sound from an underwater 

acoustic source and on the assumed 

movement patterns of simulated animals 

(animats) to predict the exposure of animats 

to underwater sound propagating through 

space and time. 

Acute: Sudden, short term, severe, critical,

crucial, intense, but usually of short

duration.

Airgun: A pneumatic device used as an 

acoustic source to acquire marine seismic 

data. It is submerged below the water 

surface and towed behind a ship, usually as 

part of an array consisting of a number of 

airguns (i.e., airgun array). 

Air quality: Assessment of the health-related 

and visual characteristics of the air, often 

derived from quantitative measurements of 

the concentrations of specific injurious or 

contaminating substances. Air quality 

standards are the prescribed levels of 

substances in the outside air that cannot be 

exceeded during a specific time in a 

specified area.

Alternative: In the context of a NEPA 

document (i.e., an EA or EIS), a different 

method for accomplishing the Proposed 

Action. As examples, an alternative can 

consist of the same action in a different

location, or the use of different mitigation 

measures.

Alternative energy: see Renewable energy. 

Ambient noise: The typical or persistent 

environmental background noise present in 

the ocean, with contributions from natural 

sources (wind, waves, rain, animal sounds, 

earthquakes, etc.) and, often, from distant 

and indistinguishable anthropogenic sources 

such as shipping. Sound from specific 

nearby anthropogenic activities is usually 

not considered to be part of the ambient 

noise.

Ambient ocean noise: The sound profile within 

the ocean composed of both far and near 

sound sources of both natural and 

anthropogenic origin. Ambient ocean noise 

is also referred to as environmental 

background noise.

Amplitude: The maximum absolute value of a 

periodic curve measured along its vertical 

axis. For sound waves, it is the maximum 

amount that the wave’s pressure differs from 

ambient pressure in the medium through 

which the sound wave is propagating.

Anadromous: Species of fish that are born in 

fresh water, migrate as juveniles to the 

ocean and grow into adults, and then return 

to fresh water to spawn.

Anthropogenic: Coming from human sources,

relating to the effect of humankind on

nature.

Anthropogenic noise: Noise related to or 

produced by human activities.

Anticyclone: Clockwise-rotating eddies in 

oceans of the northern hemisphere. 

Anticyclones generally migrate westward 

and transport large quantities of 

high-salinity, nutrient-poor water across the 

near-surface waters of the northern Gulf.

Area of Interest: The area in which the 

activities of the proposed action could take 

place and therefore the area of potential 

effect of the Programmatic EIS.

Array: The layout or arrangement of objects in 

a specific pattern, often in rows and 

columns.

Attenuation: Reduction; in this document, 

reduction of the level or intensity of sound.

Baleen whales: Whales with parallel rows of 

fibrous plates that hang from the upper jaw 

and are used for filter feeding. Also known 

as mysticetes (see Mysticete). 

Barrel (bbl): A volumetric unit used in the

petroleum industry; equivalent to 42 U.S.

gallons or 158.99 L. 
8-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Bathymetry: The water depth at various places 

in a body of water; the information derived 

from measurements to determine water 

depth.

Bathypelagic: Pertaining to the subzone of the 

pelagic zone that generally includes waters 

deeper than 1,000 m (3,300 ft). At this 

depth, there is little to no light, and 

photosynthesis is not possible. 

Consequently, there are no living plants, and 

most animals survive by consuming detritus 

falling from the pelagic zones above or by 

preying on other animals.

Behavioral effect: Defined in this 

Programmatic EIS as a change in an 

animal’s behavior or behavior patterns that 

results from exposure to some stimulus 

(e.g., an anthropogenic acoustic exposure) 

and exceeds some defined criterion 

(e.g., extends beyond the range of normal 

daily variation in behavior).

Benthic: Referring to the bottom-dwelling 

community of organisms that live on or in 

either the sea bottom.

Biological Opinion: An FWS or NMFS 

evaluation of the impact of a proposed 

action on endangered and threatened 

species, in response to formal consultation 

under Section 7 of the ESA.

Biota: The combined flora and fauna of a 

region.

Block: A geographical area portrayed on

official BOEM protraction diagrams or

leasing maps that contains approximately

2,331 ha (9 mi2

). 

Blowout: Uncontrolled flow of fluids from a

wellhead or wellbore.

Boomer: A low-energy towed device used as an 

acoustic source to acquire marine seismic 

data. The acoustic pulse is generated when 

an electrical signal discharges a capacitor 

bank causing two spring-loaded, electrically 

charged plates in the boomer transducer to 

repel, creating a precisely repeatable 

pressure pulse primarily directed downward 

to the seafloor.

Bycatch: Nontarget organisms caught in fishing 

or other harvest operations and usually 

discarded.

Candidate species: Plants and animals for 

which FWS has sufficient information on 

their biological status and threats to propose 

them as endangered or threatened under the 

ESA but for which development of a listing 

regulation is precluded by other 

higher-priority listing activities. 

Cape (spit): A type of sand bar or beach that is 

built out from the shore by deposition of 

sediment (typically sand) carried in the 

longshore current; these landforms have a 

characteristic “hook” shape when viewed 

from above (e.g., Cape Cod).

Catadromous: Term used to describe fishes 

that spend most of their adult lives in 

freshwater but migrate to the marine 

environment to spawn.

Cavitation: The sudden formation and 

subsequent collapse of low-pressure bubbles 

of air in fluids that are moving as a result of 

applied mechanical forces. The 

phenomenon of cavitation is the single 

largest contributor to underwater sound from 

ship propellers.

Cetacea or cetacean: An order of aquatic 

mammals including baleen whales 

(see Mysticetes) and toothed whales, 

dolphins, and porpoises (see Odontocetes). 

Chemosynthetic: Organisms that obtain their

energy from the oxidation of various

inorganic compounds rather than from light

(photosynthetic).

Chirp system: Chirp refers to a variety of 

pulsed sonar systems capable of conducting 

high-resolution reflection profiling of the 

subbottom using low energy acoustic 

sources with a nominal frequency range of a 

few kilohertz up to several tens or hundreds 

of kilohertz. Often chirp data are collected 

by sweeping through a range of frequencies 

in a single pulse, but some systems referred 

to as chirp may be associated with only a 

single frequency.

Clastic: Sediments composed of pieces of 

pre-existing rock.

Clathrate: Layer of frozen gas hydrate on the 

seafloor.

Clean Air Act (CAA): An act that establishes 

NAAQS for six criteria pollutants: SOx, 

NO2, CO, O3, PM10 and PM2.5, and Pb. 

Collectively, the criteria pollutants are 
Glossary 8-5

indicative of the quality of the ambient air. 

The Act requires facilities to comply with 

emission limits or reduction limits stipulated 

in State Implementation Plans. Under this 

Act, construction and operating permits, as 

well as reviews of new stationary sources 

and major modifications to existing sources, 

are required. The Act also prohibits the 

Federal Government from approving actions 

that do not conform to SIPs.

Clean Water Act (CWA): An act that requires 

NPDES permits for discharges of effluents 

to surface waters, permits for stormwater 

discharges related to industrial activity, and 

notification of oil discharges to navigable 

waters of the U.S.

Coastal: An imprecise area of land and water 

located at the interface between the shore 

and the ocean, where physical, chemical, 

and biological processes occur as 

interactions between these two ecosystems 

or because of their proximity to each other.

Coastal state: A state bordering the Atlantic or 

Pacific Oceans or the Gulf of Mexico.

Coastal waters: Waters within the geographical

areas defined by each State's Coastal Zone 

Management Program.

Coastal wetlands: Forested and nonforested

habitats, mangroves, and marsh islands

exposed to tidal activity. These areas

directly contribute to the high biological

productivity of coastal waters by input of

detritus and nutrients, by providing nursery

and feeding areas for shellfish and finfish,

and by serving as habitat for birds and other

animals.

Coastal zone: The coastal waters (including the 

lands therein and thereunder) and the

adjacent shorelands (including the waters

therein and thereunder) strongly influenced

by each other and in proximity to the

shorelines of the several coastal states; the

zone includes islands, transitional and

intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and

beaches and extends seaward to the outer

limit of the U.S. territorial sea. The zone 

extends inland from the shorelines only to 

the extent necessary to control shorelands,

the uses of which have a direct and

significant impact on the coastal waters. 

Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the

use of which is by law subject to the

discretion of or which is held in trust by the

Federal Government, its officers, or agents.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq. The CZMA 

regulates development in coastal areas to 

protect their unique resources.

Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency 

Determination: A finding that an activity 

that affects land or water uses or natural 

resources in a State’s coastal zone is in 

compliance with that State’s federally

approved Coastal Zone Management 

Program. Federal agencies must be 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A 

compilation of the general and permanent 

rules published in the Federal Register by 

the executive departments and agencies of 

the U.S. Each volume of the CFR is 

updated once each calendar year and is 

issued quarterly.

Continental margin: The ocean floor that lies

between the shoreline and the abyssal ocean

floor; includes the continental shelf,

continental slope, and continental rise.

Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test 

(COST) well: Wells that involve drilling 

penetration into the sea bottom of more than 

152 m (500 ft) and are primarily drilled to 

gather geological information (defined in 

30 CFR part 251).

Continental rise: A broad, gently dipping 

depositional plain that extends from the base 

of the continental slope from a depth of 

about 2,000 m (6,600 ft) to more than 

5,000 m (16,400 ft). 

Continental shelf: General term used by

geologist to refer to the continental margin

province that lies between the shoreline and

the abrupt change in slope called the shelf

edge, which generally occurs in the Gulf of

Mexico at about 200 m (656 ft) water depth. 

The continental shelf is characterized by a 

gentle slope (about 0.1o). This is different 

from the judicial term used in Article 76 of 

the United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea (see Outer Continental Shelf). 

Continental slope: The continental margin

province that lies between the continental
8-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

shelf and continental rise, characterized by a

steep slope (about 3o-6o).

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): A 

Federal council that coordinates Federal 

environmental efforts and works closely 

with Federal agencies and other White 

House offices to develop environmental 

policies and initiatives. Established by 

NEPA (see National Environmental Policy 

Act), the CEQ consists of three members 

appointed by the President. The CEQ 

regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508) describe 

the process for implementing NEPA, 

including preparation of EAs and EISs and 

the timing and extent of public participation.

Critical habitat: Defined in Section 3 of the 

ESA as (1) the specific areas within the

geographical area occupied by a species, at 

the time it is listed in accordance with the 

ESA, on which are found those physical or 

biological features (i) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (ii) that may 

require special management considerations 

or protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed, upon a determination 

that such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species.

Crude oil: Petroleum in its natural state as it

emerges from a well, or after it passes

through a gas-oil separator but before

refining or distillation; an oily, flammable,

bituminous liquid that is essentially a

complex mixture of hydrocarbons of

different types with small amounts of other

substances.

Cumulative impact: The impact on the 

environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor 

but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time.

Decibel (dB): A relative unit used to describe 

sound intensities. It is used to express the 

relative difference, usually between acoustic 

or electrical signals, equal to 10 or 20 times 

the common logarithm of the ratio of the 

two quantities. Since the dB scale is 

logarithmic and not linear, a 20-dB sound is

10 times louder than a 10-dB sound, and a 

30-dB sound is 100 times louder than a 

10-dB sound.

Demersal: Living at or near the bottom of a 

waterbody but having the capacity for active 

swimming. Term used particularly when 

describing various fish species.

Demersal fishes: Those fishes that spend at 

least the adult portion of their life cycle in 

association with the ocean bottom.

Deposition: The laying down of matter by a 

natural process (e.g., the settling of 

particulate matter out of air or water onto 

soil or sediment surfaces).

Depth sounder: An instrument that indirectly 

determines the ocean floor depth by 

transmitting acoustic pulses from the ocean 

surface and listening for their reflection (or 

echo) from the seafloor. A single-beam 

depth sounder calculates the depth below the 

ship using the time it takes a sound pulse to 

travel to the seafloor, reflect, and then return 

back to the transducer. A multibeam depth 

sounder transmits a broad acoustic pulse 

from a specially designed transducer across 

the full swath across track then forms a 

receive beam that is much narrower (around 

1 degree, depending on the system) to 

establish a two-way travel time of the 

acoustic pulse. If the speed of sound in 

water is known for the full water column, 

the depth and position of the return signal 

can be determined from the receive angle 

and the two-way travel time.

Development: Activities that take place

following discovery of economically

recoverable mineral resources, including

geophysical surveying, drilling, platform, 

construction, operation of onshore support

facilities, and other activities that are for the

purpose of ultimately producing the

resources.

Diapir: Intrusion of fluid rock (e.g., molten 

rock, salt, or mud) caused by the difference 

in buoyancy and pressure between it and the 

overlying rock.

Discharge: Something that is emitted; flow rate

of a fluid at a given instant expressed as

volume per unit of time.

Dispersion: A suspension of finely divided

particles in a medium.
Glossary 8-7

Distinct Population Segment (DPS): A 

vertebrate population or group of

populations that is discrete from other 

populations of the species and significant in 

relation to the entire species. The ESA 

provides for listing species, subspecies, or 

DPSs of vertebrate species.

Diurnal: Having a daily cycle or occurring 

every day.

Domestic: Produced in or indigenous to a 

particular country.

Drilling fluid (drilling mud): A mixture of 

clay, water or refined oil, and chemical 

additives pumped continuously downhole 

through the drill pipe and drill bit, and back 

up the annulus between the pipe and the 

walls of the borehole to a surface pit or tank. 

The mud lubricates and cools the drill bit, 

lubricates the drill pipe as it turns in the 

wellbore, carries rock cuttings to the surface, 

serves to keep the hole from crumbling or 

collapsing, and provides the weight or 

hydrostatic head to prevent extraneous fluids 

from entering the well bore and to downhole 

pressures; also called drilling fluid.

Dynamic Management Area (DMA): An area 

identified by NMFS that is designed to 

reduce the risk of whale-ship interactions 

when North Atlantic right whales are found 

aggregating in an area.

Easement: Authorization for the use, for a 

specified purpose, of land that is not owned 

by the user. For the OCS, a right of use and 

easement usually refer to the authorization 

by BOEM to an operator for the 

construction and maintenance of a structure 

or structures on OCS lands not subject to a 

lease granted to the operator.

Echolocation: The use of reflected sound 

waves by some animals to gather critical 

information such as the location of 

obstructions, predators, or food, or for 

purposes of reproduction.

Ecosystem: A group of organisms and their 

physical environment interacting as an 

ecological unit.

Effluent: The liquid waste of sewage and

industrial processing.

Electromagnetic field: The field of energy 

resulting from the movement of alternating 

electric current along the path of a 

conductor, composed of both electrical and 

magnetic components and existing in the 

immediate vicinity of, and surrounding, the 

electric conductor. Electromagnetic fields 

exist both in high-voltage electric 

transmission power lines and in low-voltage 

electric conductors in homes and appliances.

Embayment: A small bay or any small 

semi-enclosed coastal water body in which 

the opening to a larger body of water is 

restricted.

Endangered species: Under the ESA, any 

species that is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range (ESA § 3[6]).

Endangered Species Act (ESA): A U.S. 

Federal law whose purpose is to protect and 

recover imperiled species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend. It is 

administered by FWS and the NMFS. The 

FWS has primary responsibility for 

terrestrial and freshwater organisms, 

including manatees, polar bears, walruses, 

sea otters, and nesting sea turtles, while the 

responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine 

wildlife including all cetaceans and sea 

turtles (in the marine stage), most pinnipeds, 

and anadromous fish such as salmon. Under 

the ESA, species may be listed as either 

endangered or threatened. The ESA also 

requires the designation of critical habitat 

for listed species (see Critical habitat). 

Energy: The capacity for doing work as 

measured by the capability of doing work 

(potential energy) or the conversion of this 

capability to motion (kinetic energy) or heat.

Energy Policy Act of 2005: A bill passed in 

August 2005 that included new authority 

(Section 388) for MMS (now BOEM) to 

regulate alternative energy resources on the 

OCS.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A 

document required of Federal agencies by 

NEPA for major proposals or legislation that 

would or could significantly affect the 

environment.

Environmental justice: The fair treatment of 

people of all races, cultures, incomes, and 

educational levels with respect to the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.
8-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Epifauna: Organisms living on the surface of 

the sediment/sea bed.

Epifaunal: A community of marine organisms 

that live attached to hard substrates or move 

around and live on hard substrates.

Epipelagic: Pertaining to a subzone of the 

pelagic zone where there is enough light for 

photosynthesis. Generally includes waters 

from the surface to approximately 200 m 

(660 ft) in depth.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): As identified in 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act, those waters and 

substrate that are defined within Fishery 

Management Plans for federally managed

fish species as necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity.

Estuary: Coastal semi-enclosed body of water

that has a free connection with the open sea

and where freshwater meets and mixes with

seawater.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): The

maritime region extending 200 nmi from the

baseline of the territorial sea, in which the

U.S. has exclusive rights and jurisdiction 

over living and nonliving natural resources.

Executive Order 12898: An executive order, 

signed in 1994, establishing environmental 

justice as a Federal Government priority and 

directing all Federal agencies to make 

environmental justice part of their mission. 

Environmental justice calls for fair 

distribution of environmental hazards.

Executive Order 13158: An executive order, 

signed in 2000, establishing the National 

Marine Protected Areas Initiative.

Executive Order 13547: An executive order, 

signed in 2010, entitled Stewardship of the 

Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

The executive order establishes a national 

policy to ensure the protection, maintenance, 

and restoration of the health of ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and 

resources, enhance the sustainability of 

ocean and coastal economies, preserve our 

maritime heritage, support sustainable uses 

and access, provide for adaptive 

management to enhance our understanding 

of and capacity to respond to climate change 

and ocean acidification, and coordinate with 

U.S. national security and foreign policy 

interests. 

Exploration Plan (EP): A plan that must be

prepared by the operator and submitted to

BOEM for approval before any exploration 

or delineation drilling is conducted on a 

lease.

Exploration well: A well drilled in unproven or 

semi-proven territory to determining

whether economic quantities of oil or natural

gas deposit are present; exploratory well.

Extended Continental Shelf: Judicial term 

used in Article 76 of the United Nations 

Convention on the Law of the Sea that 

extends beyond 200 nmi from shore. For 

purpose of this Final Programmatic EIS, the 

seaward limit of the AOI shall be defined as 

a line 350 nmi (648 km) from shore. 

Article 76 of United Nations Convention on 

the Law of the Sea provides two constraint 

lines for defining the limit of the ECS: the 

seaward limit of Federal jurisdiction may be 

set at the farthest of 200 nmi seaward of the 

baseline from which the breadth of the 

territorial sea is measured or, if the 

continental shelf can be shown to exceed 

200 nmi, a distance not greater than a line 

100 nmi from the 2,500-m isobaths, or a line 

350 nmi from the baseline.

Extralimital: Known on the basis of only a few 

records that probably resulted from unusual 

wanderings of animals into the region.

Fault: A fracture in the earth’s crust 

accompanied by displacement of one side of 

the fracture with respect to the other and in a 

direction parallel to the fracture.

Federal Register: The official daily publication 

for actions taken by the U.S. Federal 

Government, such as Rules, Proposed Rules, 

and Notices of Federal agencies and 

organizations, as well as Executive Orders

and other Presidential documents.

Frequency: In acoustics, a description of the 

rate of vibration, measured in cycles per 

second. One cycle per second is usually 

referred to as 1 Hz. Frequency is perceived 

by humans as pitch. 

Frequency (pitch): For sound waves, 

frequency is the rate at which the 

source-producing sound wave is vibrating or 

the rate at which the sound-producing body 
Glossary 8-9

completes one vibration cycle. Frequency is 

expressed in units of Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz 

is equal to one complete vibration cycle per 

second.

Gas hydrates: Gas molecules (e.g., methane) 

trapped in water-ice “cages” in subsea 

deposits.

Geochemical: Of or relating to the science

dealing with the chemical composition of

and the actual or possible chemical changes

in the crust of the earth.

Geology: The study of the materials, processes, 

environments, and history of the earth, 

including rocks and their formation and 

structure.

Geophysical survey: A method of exploration

in which geophysical properties and

relationships are measured remotely by one

or more geophysical methods.

Gulf Stream: The powerful, warm, and swift 

Atlantic Ocean current that is the western 

boundary current of the North Atlantic 

subtropical gyre (the clockwise circulation 

pattern produced by the earth’s rotation). 

After passing Cape Hatteras, the Gulf 

Stream flows northeast toward Europe.

Habitat: A specific type of environment that is

occupied by an organism, a population, or a

community.

Harassment: Two definitions of harassment are 

used in this Programmatic EIS, depending 

on context. Under the ESA, harassment is 

an intentional or negligent act or omission 

which creates the likelihood of injury to 

wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as 

to significantly disrupt normal behavioral

patterns which include, but are not limited 

to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Under 

the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, 

harassment is any act of pursuit, torment, or

annoyance which (a) has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or 

(b) has the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering but which does not 

have the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level B harassment).

Hazardous materials: Materials, including 

nonwaste substances, that, because of their 

quantity, concentration, or physical, 

chemical, or infectious characteristics, may 

present substantial danger to public health or 

welfare or the environment. Such materials 

may be transported to and from, stored at, 

and/or used at alternative energy and 

alternate use project sites approved on the 

OCS.

High-frequency cetaceans: Species of 

cetaceans having a functional hearing range 

between 200 Hz and 180 kHz. Refer to 

Southall et al. (2007) for more information.

High-resolution geophysical (HRG) survey: 

A survey conducted to evaluate the 

suitability of a specific site for oil and gas 

exploration and development activities, 

renewable energy facilities, or marine 

mineral uses. The surveys are conducted to 

assess subseafloor conditions and to detect 

geohazards, archaeological resources, and 

certain types of benthic communities. The 

HRG surveys for oil and gas exploration 

may use an airgun in addition to 

electromechanical sources such as side-scan 

sonar, boomer or chirp subbottom profiler, 

and single or multibeam depth sounder. The 

HRG surveys for renewable energy and 

marine minerals sites are not expected to use 

airguns.

Hydrocarbons: Any of a large class of organic

compounds containing primarily carbon and

hydrogen. Hydrocarbon compounds are

divided into two broad classes: aromatic 

and aliphatics. They occur primarily in

petroleum, natural gas, coal, and bitumens.

Hydrophone: Essentially an underwater 

microphone, a hydrophone is an underwater 

receiver used to detect the pressure change 

caused by sound waves propagating through 

the water. That pressure is converted to 

electrical energy which can be recorded or 

measured.

Incidental harassment: An accidental taking. 

This does not mean that the taking is 

unexpected, but rather it includes those 

takings that are infrequent, unavoidable, or 

accidental.

Incidental take: Takings that result from, but

are not the purpose of, carrying out an

otherwise lawful activity (e.g., fishing)
8-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

conducted by a Federal agency or applicant

(see Taking). 

Incidental Take Authorization (ITA): In 

1981, Congress amended the MMPA to 

provide for “incidental take” authorizations 

for maritime activities, provided NMFS 

found the takings would be of small 

numbers and have no more than a 

“negligible impact” on those marine 

mammal species not listed as depleted under 

the MMPA (i.e., listed under the ESA) and 

not having an “unmitigable adverse impact”

on subsistence harvests of these species. 

These "incidental take" authorizations, also 

known as LOAs, require that regulations be 

promulgated and published in the Federal 

Register

Infauna: Animals living within the sediment.

Infrastructure: The facilities associated with

oil and gas development, e.g., refineries, gas

processing plants, etc.

Intensity: For sound, intensity is the measure of 

the amount of energy that is transported over 

a given area per unit of time. Sound 

intensity is expressed in units of W/m2

. 

Invertebrate: An organism lacking a backbone 

or spinal column. Any animal other than a 

fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal.

Lease: Authorization that is issued under

Section 8 or maintained under Section 6 of

the OCSLA and that authorizes exploration 

for, and development and production of, 

minerals.

Lease sale: The competitive auction of leases

granting companies or individuals the right

to explore for and develop certain minerals

under specified conditions and periods of

time.

Lessee: A party authorized by a lease, or an

approved assignment thereof, to explore for

and develop and produce the leased deposits

in accordance with regulations at 30 CFR 

part 250.

Letter of Authorization (LOA): The MMPA 

provides for “incidental take authorizations” 

for maritime activities, provided NMFS 

finds that the takings would be of small 

numbers, would have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stock, and would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses. These

"incidental take" authorizations, or LOAs, 

require that regulations be promulgated and 

published in the Federal Register outlining: 

(a) permissible methods and the specified 

geographical region of taking; (b) the means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the species or stock and its habitat 

and on the availability of the species or 

stock for "subsistence" uses; and (c)

requirements for monitoring and reporting, 

including requirements for the independent 

peer review of proposed monitoring plans 

where the proposed activity may affect the 

availability of a species or stock for taking 

for subsistence uses.

Level A harassment: Under the MMPA, Level 

A harassment includes any act that injures or 

has the significant potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in 

the wild.

Level B harassment: Level B harassment is 

any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in 

the wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering to a point 

where the patterns are abandoned or 

significantly altered. Unlike Level A 

harassment, which is solely associated with 

physiological effects, both physiological and 

behavioral effects have the potential to cause 

Level B harassment.

Localized: In close proximity to where work is 

being conducted.

Logarithmic: A mathematical term of the ratio 

of values expressed by the base 10 or e. If 

the base is 10, the logarithm is called 

common. If the base is e, the logarithm is 

called natural. Human perception of the 

amplitude or “loudness” of sound follows a 

logarithmic, rather than a linear, 

relationship. For every increase in sound 

loudness perceived as a simple additive 

quantity, the loudness or amplitude actually 

increases as a multiplier of the initial 

amplitude.

Low-frequency cetaceans: Species of 

cetaceans having a functional hearing range 

between 7 Hz and 22 kHz. Refer to Southall 

et al. (2007) for more information.
Glossary 8-11

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): 

Enacted in October 1972, the MMPA 

provides protection for all marine mammals. 

The MMPA prohibits, with certain 

exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals 

in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the 

high seas, and the importation of marine 

mammals and marine mammal products into 

the U.S. 

Marine Protected Area (MPA): A marine area 

established under Executive Order 13158.

Masking: The obscuring of sounds of interest 

by interfering sounds, generally at the same 

or similar frequencies.

Meteorological buoy: A buoy containing 

equipment designed to measure current and 

wave conditions to determine whether a site 

is suitable for a wind turbine.

Meteorological tower: A tower containing 

equipment designed to measure wind speeds 

and to determine whether a site is suitable 

for a wind turbine.

Mid-frequency cetaceans: Species of 

cetaceans having a functional hearing range 

between 150 Hz and 160 kHz. Refer to 

Southall et al. (2007) for more information.

Minerals: As used in this document, minerals

include oil, gas, sulphur, and associated

resources, and all other minerals authorized

by an Act of Congress to be produced from

public lands as defined in Section 103 of the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976.

Mitigation measure: Measures that will 

minimize, avoid, rectify, reduce, eliminate, 

or compensate for significant environmental 

effects.

Moratorium: Delay; a period during which 

certain proceedings or obligations are 

suspended.

M-weighting: Frequency-weighting functions 

developed by Southall et al. (2007) for use 

in assessing the effects of underwater sounds 

on marine mammal. The weighting 

functions (designated “M” for marine 

mammals) are analogous to the C-weighting 

function for humans, which is commonly

used in measuring high-amplitude sounds. 

Refer to Southall et al. (2007) for more 

information.

Mysticete: Any whale of the suborder Mysticeti 

having plates of whalebone (baleen plates) 

instead of teeth. Mysticetes are 

filter-feeding whales, also referred to as 

baleen whales, such as blue, fin, gray, and

humpback whales.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS): Air quality standards 

established by the CAA, as amended. The 

primary NAAQS specify maximum outdoor 

air concentrations of criteria pollutants to 

protect public health within an adequate 

margin of safety. The secondary NAAQS 

specify maximum concentrations that would 

protect the public welfare from any known 

or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 

A U.S. Federal law passed by Congress in 

1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.)

establishing a national policy to provide a 

process for the consideration of 

environmental issues in Federal agency 

planning and decision-making. The 

potential environmental impacts of proposed 

Federal actions on the human and natural 

environment were to be considered prior to 

decision-making. The NEPA procedures 

require that environmental information be 

made available to the public and the

decision makers before decisions are made. 

Information contained in the NEPA 

documents must focus on the relevant issues 

in order to facilitate the decision-making 

process.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): 

A Federal statute that established a Federal 

program to further the efforts of private 

agencies and individuals in preserving the 

nation’s historic and cultural foundations.

National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS): 

A Federal agency that is a part of NOAA. 

The NMFS is responsible for the 

management, conservation, and protection 

of living marine resources within the U.S. 

EEZ. The NMFS is currently referred to as 

NOAA Fisheries.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA): A Federal 

agency that manages commercial and 

recreational fisheries within Federal waters 

and designates EFH to help conserve Gulf 

fishery resources.
8-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2): A reddish-brown gas 

that is a strong oxidizing agent, produced by 

combustion (as of fossil fuels). The reactive 

oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere are 

largely NO and NO2, known together as 

NOx. During the day, there exists a rapid 

interconversion of NO and NO2 (see

Nitrogen oxides). Nitrogen dioxide is one of 

the six criteria air pollutants specified under 

Title I of the CAA.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): Nitrogen oxides 

include various nitrogen compounds, 

primarily nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2). They form when fossil fuels 

are burned at high temperatures and react 

with volatile organic compounds to form 

ozone, the main component of urban smog. 

They are also precursor pollutants that 

contribute to the formation of acid rain and 

to impairment of visibility.

Noise: Unwanted sound; a subjective term 

reflective of societal values regarding what 

constitutes unwanted or undesirable 

intrusions of sound.

Nonattainment area: An area that is shown by

monitoring data or by air-quality modeling

calculations to exceed primary or secondary

ambient air quality standards established by

USEPA.

Nonlisted species: Species that are not listed as 

threatened or endangered by State or Federal 

agencies.

Notice of Intent (NOI): A written notice 

published in the Federal Register that 

announces the intent to prepare an EIS under 

the NEPA. Also provides information about 

a proposed Federal action, alternatives, the 

scoping process, and points of contact 

within the lead Federal agency regarding the 

EIS.

Ocean current: Continuous forward movement 

of ocean water driven by wind and solar 

heating of the waters near the equator, 

although some ocean currents result instead 

from variations in water density and salinity.

Odontocete: Any toothed whale (i.e., cetacean 

without baleen plates) of the suborder 

Odontoceti (e.g., sperm whales, killer 

whales, beaked whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises).

Operator: An individual, partnership, firm, or

corporation having control or management

of operations on a leased area or portion

thereof. The operator may be a lessee,

designated agent of the lessee, or holder of

operating rights under an approved

operating agreement.

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS): All

submerged lands that comprise the

continental margin adjacent to the U.S. and 

seaward of State offshore lands.

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands: 

Offshore lands located outside of State 

coastal waters. Generally, OCS lands begin 

approximately 3.3 statute mi offshore with 

respect to coastal States, except in the cases 

of Texas and the west coast of Florida, 

where OCS lands begin approximately 

10.2 statute mi offshore.

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 

as amended: An act authorizing the U.S. 

Department of the Interior to regulate 

activities related to the development of 

mineral resources on the OCS.

Ozone (O3): A strong-smelling, reactive gas 

consisting of molecules composed of three 

oxygen atoms. It is formed in the 

atmosphere by chemical reactions involving 

nitrogen oxides and volatile organic 

compounds in sunlight. A major constituent 

of smog, it can impair the respiratory system 

and damage plants and ecosystems. Ozone 

is a criteria air pollutant under the CAA.

Pascal (Pa): A unit of pressure equivalent to 

1 newton of force applied evenly over 1 m2

. 

The unit is named after Blaise Pascal, the 

eminent French mathematician, physicist, 

and philosopher.

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM): A 

listening system that, in the marine 

environment, utilizes hydrophones, signal 

processing software, and (usually) some 

degree of human listening to detect and 

often to localize the vocalizations of marine 

mammals.

Pelagic: A broad term applied to species that 

inhabit the open, upper portion of marine 

waters rather than waters adjacent to land or 

near the seafloor.
Glossary 8-13

Pelagic fishes: Fish that spend most of their 

lives swimming in the water column, as 

opposed to on or near the bottom.

Permanent threshold shift (PTS): Exposure to 

high-intensity sound may result in auditory 

effects such as noise-induced threshold shift, 

or simply a threshold shift. If the threshold 

shift becomes a permanent condition, 

generally as a result of physical injury to the 

inner ear and hearing loss, it is known as 

PTS.

Physical oceanography: The scientific study of 

ocean physics, including ocean currents, 

waves, and tides.

Physiographic: Pertaining to the physical 

features of the land, in particular its slope 

and elevation.

Physiological effect: Defined in this 

Programmatic EIS as a variation in an 

animal’s physiology that results from an

anthropogenic acoustic exposure and 

exceeds the normal daily variation in 

physiological function.

Pinger: A pulse generator using underwater 

sound to transmit data, such as subject 

location.

Pinniped: Any member of a suborder 

(Pinnipedia) of aquatic carnivorous 

mammals (i.e., seals and sea lions) with all 

four limbs modified into flippers

Pitch: A property of sound; sound wave 

frequency as perceived by the receptor. In 

music, two tones whose frequencies make a 

2:1 ratio are said to be separated by an 

octave interval; a frequency ratio of 

5:4 ration defines a third; a frequency ratio 

of 4:3 defines a fourth; a frequency ration of 

3:2 defines a fifth.

Plankton: Passively floating or weakly motile

aquatic plants (phytoplankton) and animals

(zooplankton).

Planning Area: A subdivision of an offshore 

area used as the initial basis for considering 

blocks to be offered for lease in the U.S. 

Department of Interior’s areawide offshore 

oil and gas leasing program.

Platform: A steel or concrete structure from

which offshore development wells are

drilled.

PM10: Particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

of less than or equal to 10 micrometers 

(0.0004 in.). These can be inhaled through 

the upper airways and deposited in the lower 

airways and gas-exchange tissues in the 

lung. PM10 is one of the six criteria air 

pollutants specified under Title I of the 

CAA.

PM2.5: Particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

(0.0001 in.). A greater fraction of particles 

in this size range can penetrate and be 

deposited deep in the lungs, and smaller 

portions of PM2.5 (e.g., >0.1 micrometer) 

can enter the bloodstream. PM2.5 is one of 

the six criteria air pollutants specified under 

Title I of the CAA.

Pneumatic: Operated by pressurizing air.

Population: A group of individuals of the same 

species occupying a defined locality during 

a given time that exhibit reproductive 

continuity from generation to generation.

Production: Activities that take place after the

successful completion of any means for the

extraction of resources, including bringing

the resource to the surface, transferring the

produced resource to shore, monitoring

operations, and drilling additional wells or

workovers.

Proposed species: Candidate species that were 

found to warrant listing as either threatened 

or endangered and were officially proposed 

as such in a Federal Register notice after the 

completion of a status review and 

consideration of other protective 

conservation measures. Public comment is 

always sought on a proposal to list species 

under the ESA. The NMFS generally has 

one year after a species is proposed for 

listing under the ESA to make a final 

determination whether to list a species as 

threatened or endangered.

Protected species observer (PSO): A trained, 

dedicated, and experienced individual 

responsible for conducting visual watches 

for protected species, such as marine 

mammals and sea turtles, during marine 

seismic surveys; previously called Marine

Mammal Observer or MMO.

Province: A spatial entity with common

geologic attributes. A province may include

a single dominant structural element such as 
8-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

a basin or a fold belt, or a number of

contiguous related elements.

Pulse: A brief, broadband, atonal, transient 

sound; e.g., an explosion, gun shot, airgun 

pulse, or pile driving strike. Pulses are 

characterized by a rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to maximal pressure, and (at least 

near the source) by short duration.

Ramp up (or soft start): Turning on airguns or 

other acoustic source at low power and 

gradually and systematically increasing the 

output until full power is achieved (usually 

over a period of minutes). The appropriate 

ramp up or soft-start method depends on 

factors such as the type of seismic survey

equipment being used and vessel speed.

Raptor: Bird of prey (e.g., an eagle, owl, or 

hawk).

Received level: The level of sound that arrives 

at the receiver (e.g., a marine mammal) or 

listening device (hydrophone). The received 

level is the source level minus the 

transmission losses from the sound traveling 

through the water.

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise 

summary of the decision made by the 

project proponent (e.g., BOEM) from the

alternatives presented in a Final EIS. The 

ROD is published in the Federal Register. 

Recreational beaches: Frequently visited,

sandy areas along the shorefront that support 

multiple recreational activities at the 

land-water interface (e.g., National 

Seashores, State Park and Recreational 

Areas, county and local parks, urban 

beachfronts, and private resorts). 

Red tides: Blooms of single-cell algae that 

produce potent toxins harmful to marine 

organisms and humans and are a natural 

phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico, 

occurring primarily off southwestern Florida 

and Mexico.

Region: In this document, geographic areas on 

the OCS off the coast of the U.S. where the 

BOEM has jurisdiction to regulate actions, 

including oil and gas development and 

development of mineral resources.

Relict: A remnant or fragment of the vegetation 

of an area that remains from a period when 

the vegetation was more widely distributed.

Relief: The difference in elevation between the

high and low points of a surface.

Renewable energy: For the purposes of this 

Programmatic EIS, renewable energy is 

defined as energy resources that are 

naturally replenishing but flow-limited. 

They are virtually inexhaustible in duration 

but limited in the amount of energy that is 

available per unit of time. Renewable 

energy resources include biomass, 

hydrological, geothermal, solar, wind, 

ocean, thermal, wave action, and tidal.

Reserves: Proved oil or gas resources.

Resonance: A phenomenon that exists when an 

object is vibrated at a frequency near its 

natural frequency of vibration – the 

particular frequency at which the object 

vibrates most readily.

Rig: A structure used for drilling an oil or gas

well.

Right-of-way: In property law, an easement to 

use another’s land for passage. For the 

OCS, a right-of-way is most commonly used 

for pipelines that cross lands that the 

operator does not control entirely by lease.

Root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure: 

Average sound pressure over some specified 

time interval. For airgun pulses, the 

averaging time is commonly taken to be the 

approximate duration of one pulse, which in 

turn is commonly assumed to be the time 

interval within which 90 percent of the pulse 

energy arrives. The rms sound pressure 

level (in dB) is typically ~10 dB less than 

the peak level, and ~16 dB less than the 

peak-to-peak level.

Salinity: A measure of the salt content of water, 

usually expressed in parts per thousand 

(ppt). 

Salt marshes: Intertidal wetlands that occur on 

the margins of estuaries, protected bays, and 

the landward side of barrier islands.

Scoping: An early and open process with 

Federal and State agencies and interested 

parties to identify possible alternatives and 

the significant issues to be addressed in an 

EIS.

Seagrass beds: More-or-less continuous mats

of submerged, rooted, marine, flowering

vascular plants occurring in shallow tropical
Glossary 8-15

and temperate waters. Seagrass beds

provide habitat, including breeding and

feeding grounds, for adults and/or juveniles

of many of the economically important

shellfish and finfish.

Sediment: Material that has been transported

and deposited by water, wind, glacier,

precipitation, or gravity; a mass of deposited

material.

Sedimentary basin: A geologically (but not 

necessarily topographically) depressed area 

with thick sediments (sedimentary rocks) in 

the interior and thinner sediments at the 

edges.

Seeps (hydrocarbon): Gas or oil that reaches

the surface along bedding planes, fractures,

unconformities, or fault planes.

Seismic: Of, subject to, or caused by an 

earthquake or earth vibration.

Shallow test wells: Wells that involve drilling 

into the sea bottom to depths less than 

152 m (500 ft) and are primarily drilled to 

gather geological information (30 CFR 

part 251). 

Shoal: The sandy elevation of the bottom of a 

body of water, constituting a hazard to 

navigation; a sandbank or sandbar.

Short-term: Lasting for a limited time (not 

permanent).

Sound exposure level (SEL): The total noise 

energy produced from a single noise event; 

the SEL is the integration of all the acoustic 

energy contained within the event. The SEL 

takes into account both the intensity and the 

duration of a noise event. The SEL is stated 

in dB re 1 μPa2 s for underwater sound. 

Sound navigation and ranging (sonar): Any 

anthropogenic (manmade) or animal (e.g.,

bats, dolphins) system that uses transmitted

and/or received acoustic signals for 

navigation, communication, and determining 

position and bearing of a target. There are 

two broad types of anthropogenic sonar: 

active and passive. Active sonar involves 

the production of a signal that propagates 

through the environment and bounces off 

objects (such as a prey item). That reflected 

sound, or echo, travels back to the receiver,

which interprets the echo. Therefore, active 

sonar involves two-way sound transmission. 

Passive sonar involves one-way sound 

transmission from an acoustic source (such 

as conspecific) to a receiver or listener.

Sound pressure level (SPL): A measure of the 

rms, or “effective” sound pressure, 

converted to decibels. The SPL is expressed 

in dB re 1 μPa for underwater sound and dB 

re to 20 μPa for airborne sound.

Source level: The received sound pressure level 

measured or estimated at a nominal distance 

of 1 m from the source. It is often expressed 

as dB re: 1 μPa at 1 m or in bar-m. For a 

distributed source, such as an airgun array, 

the nominal overall source level, as used in 

predicting received levels at long distances, 

exceeds the level measurable at any one 

point in the water near the sources.

Sparker: A low-energy acoustic source that 

generates a precisely timed electrical arc that 

momentarily vaporizes water between 

positive and negative leads. The collapsing

bubbles produce a broad band 

omnidirectional pulse which can penetrate 

several hundred meters into the ocean 

bottom. Hydrophone arrays towed nearby 

receive the return signals.

Species of (special) concern: A species that 

may have a declining population, limited 

occurrence, or low numbers for any of a 

variety of reasons.

Structure: Any OCS facility that extends from

the seafloor to above the waterline; in

petroleum geology, any arrangement of

rocks that may hold an accumulation of oil

or gas.

Sulfur oxides (SOx): A collective term for 

oxides of sulfur, of which the principal air 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfur 

trioxide (SO3), and sulfur mist generated by 

the combination of the sulfur oxides with 

water in the air. These gases are formed 

primarily by fossil fuel combustion. SOx

contributes to respiratory illness, particularly 

in children and the elderly, and aggravates 

existing heart and lung diseases. It also 

contributes to the formation of acid rain and 

to visibility impairments. SOx is one of the 

six criteria air pollutants specified under 

Title I of the clean Air Act.

Supply vessel: A boat that ferries food, water,

fuel, and drilling supplies and equipment to

an offshore rig or platform and returns to
8-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

land with refuse that cannot be disposed of

at sea.

Surficial: Pertaining to or lying on the surface 

of the earth.

Taking: To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any

endangered or threatened species, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct

(including actions that induce stress,

adversely impact critical habitat, or result in

adverse secondary or cumulative impacts). 

Harassments are the most common form of

taking associated with OCS Program

activities.

Temporary: Lasting for a limited time (not 

permanent).

Temporary threshold shift (TTS): Exposure 

to high-intensity sound may result in 

auditory effects such as noise-induced 

threshold shift, or simply a threshold shift. 

If the threshold shift recovers completely 

after a few minutes, hours, or days, it is 

known as TTS. A threshold shift represents 

an increase in the auditory threshold (i.e., a 

reduced ability to hear) at a particular 

frequency. By definition, TTS is 

recoverable and results from the temporary, 

non-injurious distortion of hearing-related 

tissues. In this Programmatic EIS, the 

smallest measurable amount of TTS (onset 

TTS) is taken as the best indicator for slight 

temporary sensory impairment. Because it 

is non-injurious, the acoustic exposure

associated with onset TTS is used to define 

the outer limit of the portion of the Level B

harassment zone attributable to 

physiological effects.

Terrace: A flat, wave-cut platform of various 

unconsolidated sedimentary deposits.

Terrigenous: Pertaining to sediments derived 

from land sources.

Terrigenous clastic sediments: Sediments 

derived from pre-existing, land-derived 

sources, delivered to the ocean by rivers and 

streams.

Threatened species: Under the ESA, any 

species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range (ESA § 3[20]).

Topography: The elevation or slope of the land 

surface.

Transmission loss: Pressure or energy losses 

that occur as the sound travels through the 

water. Losses occur because the wavefront 

spreads over an increasingly large volume as 

the sound propagates, and because of

additional processes including scattering and 

the absorption of some of the energy by 

water.

Turbidity: Reduced water clarity due to the 

presence of suspended matter.

Turbine: A device in which a stream of water 

or gas turns a bladed wheel, converting the 

kinetic energy of the flow into mechanical 

energy available from the turbine shaft. 

Turbines are considered the most 

economical means of turning large electrical 

generators. They are typically driven by 

steam, fuel vapor, water, or wind.

Upwelling: The process by which warm, 

less-dense surface water is drawn away from 

a shoreline by offshore currents and replaced 

by cold, denser water brought up from the 

subsurface.

U.S. Territorial Waters: Sea areas within 

12 nmi of the U.S. coastline, normally 

measured from the official baselines of the 

country (typically the mean of the lower low 

tide locations for the U.S.), for which coastal

nations exercise sovereignty.

Velocity: For acoustics, the speed at which a 

sound wave (a longitudinal wave) travels 

through a medium. Velocity is measured in 

units of distance/time. The velocity or speed 

of a sound wave in any medium is 

dependent on both the inertial and elastic 

properties of the medium. In air, the speed 

of sound is dependent on the air’s pressure 

(a measure of its inertial property of density) 

and its temperature (a measure of the air’s 

elastic property of deformation in response 

to an applied force – in this case, the sound 

wave). At 1 atmosphere of pressure and a 

temperature of 20°C (68°F), the speed of 

sound is approximately 343 m/s (750 mph).

Vibratory: Operated by causing rapid, small 

movement in a back and forth manner.

Water quality: The condition of water with 

respect to the amount of impurities in it.
Glossary 8-17

Watt: An International System unit of power 

equal to 1 joule per second.

Wavelength: The distance from any point in 

the wave to the corresponding point in the 

next cycle of the wave. Longer wavelengths 

are perceived by the human ear as low tones, 

shorter wavelengths as high tones.

Weathering (of oil): The aging of oil due to its 

exposure to the atmosphere, resulting in 

marked alterations in its physical and 

chemical makeup.

FIGURES

Figures Figures-3 

Figure 1-1. Area of Interest for the Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS. 
Figures-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Initial Notice of Intent

January 21, 2009

Initial Scoping Period (60 days)

(January 21 – March 23, 2009)

Notice of Intent

April 2, 2010

Reopened Scoping Period (45 days)

and Public Scoping Meetings

(April 2 – May 17, 2010) 

Preparation of Draft Programmatic EIS

Public Comment Period (60 days)

that includes Public Hearings

(March 30 – May 29, 2012) 

BOEM Program Director agrees to 30-day extension of 

comment period (ends July 2, 2012) 

Preparation of Final Programmatic EIS

Notice of Availability of Final Programmatic EIS

Public Comment Period

(30 days)

Record of Decision

Figure 1-2. Primary Steps in the NEPA Process for the Programmatic 

EIS. 
Figures Figures-5

Figure 2-1. Summary of Speed Restrictions and Locations for Vessel Operators to Comply with the Right 

Whale Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105) (USDOC, NOAA, 2011).
Figures-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 2-2. Time-Area Closures under Alternative A. 
Figures Figures-7

Figure 2-3. Time-Area Closures under Alternative B.
Figures-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 2-4. Time-Area Closures Offshore Brevard County under Alternative B. 
Figures Figures-9

Figure 2-5. Location of 2D Seismic Lines Shot within the Area of Interest in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Figures-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

 

Figure 2-6. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under Alternative A. 
Figures Figures-11

Figure 2-7. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under Alternative B.

HRG Survey Protocol Requirements 

under Alternative B

Are Any Sources ≤ 200 kHz?

YES

(Acoustic Exclusion Zone Required)

NO

(No Acoustic Exclusion Zone)

Are Any Sources ≤ 30 kHz?

NO

- Time-Area Closure offshore Brevard Co. (Sea Turtles) 

- Time-Area Closure in Right Whale Critical Habitat

- Time-Area Closure in Right Whale DMAs

- Acoustic Exclusion Zone Required

- Visual Monitoring by Trained PSOs

- Additional Monitoring Required at Night or in 

Reduced Visibility

- Vessel Strike Avoidance

Are Any Sources <1.6 kHz?

YES NO

- Time-Area Closure in Right Whale Critical Habitat

- Time Area Closure in Right Whale DMAs

- Acoustic Exclusion Zone Required

- Visual Monitoring by Trained PSOs

- Additional Monitoring Required at Night or in 

Reduced Visibility

- Vessel Strike Avoidance

- No Time-Area Closures

- Acoustic Exclusion Zone Required

- Visual Monitoring by Trained PSOs

- Additional Monitoring Required at Night or in 

Reduced Visibility

- Vessel Strike Avoidance

- No Time-Area Closures

- No Acoustic Exclusion Zone

- No PSO requirements

- No additional mitigation other than 

 Vessel Strike Avoidance

YES
Figures Figures-12 

Figure 3-1. Simple Illustration of a Marine Seismic Survey Using 

Streamers. 

Figure 3-2. Illustration of the Difference between 2D and 3D Streamer Survey 

Coverage (Spacing between adjacent ship tracks for 2D will typically 

be greater than 1 km [0.6 mi]; spacing for 3D surveys varies, but the 

data density typically will be 15-20 times greater than for 2D surveys 

[IAGC, 2011; Credit: Jack Caldwell and Chris Walker].). 
Figures Figures-13

Figure 4-1. Area of Interest for the Proposed Action.
Figures-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-2. Seafloor Features along the Mid- and South Atlantic Continental Margin.
Figures Figures-15

Figure 4-3. Distribution of Hard/Live Bottom Habitats and Collected Coral Locations in the Area of 

Interest (Hard/live bottom habitats [from the Virginia/North Carolina border southward] 

are from the SEAMAP database. Collected coral locations [from Cape Hatteras 

northward] are from online searches of museum records, courtesy of S. Ross and 

M. Rhode, University of North Carolina, Wilmington.). 
Figures-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-4. Locations of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) Designated by the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, New England Fishery Management Council, and NOAA 

National Marine Fisheries Service (Note: The Charleston Bump Complex HAPC is not the 

Charleston Bump feature, which is shown on Figure 4-2.). 
Figures Figures-17

Figure 4-5. Location of the Blake Ridge Diapir Site Studied by Van Dover et al. (2003) (Star indicates study 

site; shaded area indicates region of gas hydrate deposits. Bathymetry is shown in meters.). 
Figures-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-6. Artificial Reefs in the Area of Interest (Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2010; 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 2011; Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 

2011; Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2011; North Carolina Division of 

Marine Fisheries, 2011; South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine 

Resources Division, 2011; Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 2011).
Figures Figures-19

Figure 4-7. North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat and U.S. Seasonal Management Areas

(50 CFR § 224.105). 
Figures-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-8. North Atlantic Right Whale Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Use (NOAA Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida, http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov).
Figures Figures-21

Figure 4-9. Distribution of Fin Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC Shipboard and Aerial Surveys 

during the Summers of 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 (Isobaths are the 100-m 

[328-ft], 1,000-m [3,280-ft], and 4,000-m [13,124-ft] depth contours.) (Waring et al., 2010).
Figures-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-10. Distribution of Humpback Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC Shipboard and Aerial 

Surveys during the Summers of 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 (Isobaths are the 

100-m [328-ft], 1,000-m [3,280-ft], and 4,000-m [13,124-ft] depth contours.) (Waring et al., 

2010).
Figures Figures-23

Figure 4-11. Distribution of Sei Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC Shipboard and Aerial Surveys 

during the Summers of 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 (Isobaths are the 100-m 

[328-ft], 1,000-m [3,280-ft], and 4,000-m [13,124-ft] depth contours.) (Waring et al., 2010).
Figures-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-12. Distribution of Sperm Whale Sightings from NEFSC and SEFSC Shipboard and Aerial Surveys 

during the Summer in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2006 (Isobaths are the 100-m [328-ft], 

1,000-m [3,280-ft], and 4,000-m [13,124-ft] depth contours.) (Waring et al., 2010).
Figures Figures-25

Figure 4-13. Florida Manatee Critical Habitat (50 CFR § 17.95). 
Figures-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-14. Densities of Sea Turtle Nests Reported for Individual Counties within the Area of Interest for 

the 2010 Nesting Season (http://www.seaturtle.org/nestdb/ [North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Georgia]; http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/ [Florida]).
Figures Figures-27

Figure 4-15. Location of the Four Recovery Units for the Loggerhead Turtle in the U.S. 

(NRU = Northern Recovery Unit, PFRU = Peninsular Florida Recovery 

Unit, DTRU = Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit, NGMRU = Northern Gulf of 

Mexico Recovery Unit) (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008).

Figure 4-16. Estimated Annual Number of Loggerhead Nests in the Southeastern 

U.S., Bahamas (including Cay Sal Bank), Cuba, and Mexico, 2001-2008

(USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 2008).
Figures-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-17. Atlantic Flyway Migratory Routes (http://birdnature.com/flyways.html). 
Figures Figures-29

Figure 4-18. Location of Critical Habitat for the Smalltooth Sawfish (USDOC, NMFS, 2011n).
Figures-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-19. Locations of All Smalltooth Sawfish Sightings Recorded, 1999-2009 (National Sawfish 

Encounter Database, 2011).
Figures Figures-31

Figure 4-20. Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) for the Atlantic Sturgeon (Atlantic Sturgeon Status 

Review Team, 2007).
Figures-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-21. Commercial Landings and Value by Month within the Area of Interest in 2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 

2013a).

Figure 4-22. Commercial Landings and Value by Gear Type within the Area of Interest in 2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 

2013a).
Figures Figures-33

Figure 4-23. Locations of Selected Seasonal and/or Area Closures to Commercial Fishing in Federal 

Waters Offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic States (additional restrictions apply in 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern [see Figure 4-4]). 
Figures-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-24. Regulated Trap/Pot Areas under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan (USDOC, NMFS, 2010e).

Figure 4-25. Regulated Gillnet Areas under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan (USDOC, NMFS, 2010e).
Figures Figures-35

Figure 4-26. Numbers of Recreational Angler Trips by Individual States within the Area of Interest from 2008 

through 2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b).

Figure 4-27. Numbers of Recreational Angler Trips by Month within the Area of Interest from 2008 through 

2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b).
Figures-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-28. Numbers of Recreational Angler Trips (stacked) by Fishing Location in the Mid-Atlantic States 

(Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) and South Atlantic States (North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, and the Florida East Coast) from 2008 through 2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b).

Figure 4-29. Numbers and Types of Fishes Landed by Recreational Anglers in the Mid-Atlantic States 

(Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) from 2008 through 2012 (USDOC, NMFS, 2013b).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

inland <3 miles >3 miles

Number of angler trps (millions)

Fishing location

South Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Atlantic croaker Spot White perch Bluefish Striped bass

Numbers of fish (millions)
Figures Figures-37

Figure 4-30. Numbers and Types of Fishes Landed by Recreational Anglers in the South Atlantic States (North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Florida East Coast) from 2008 through 2012

(USDOC, NMFS, 2013b).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Mullet Scaled Sardine Southern kingfish Spot Bluefish

Numbers of fish (millions)
Figures-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-31. Shipwrecks and Obstructions in the Area of Interest.
Figures Figures-39

Figure 4-32. Model Showing Location of Paleochannels within the Georgia Bight (TRC Environmental 

Corporation, 2011).
Figures-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-33. Marine Protected Areas along Coastal and Nearshore Waters of Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 

States (USDOC, NOAA, National Marine Protected Areas Center, http://www.mpa.gov). 
Figures Figures-41

Figure 4-34. Deepwater Marine Protected Areas Designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (SAFMC) (SAFMC, 2011b).
Figures-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-35. State-Designated Marine Protected Areas along the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts 

(USDOC, NOAA, National Marine Protected Areas Center, http://www.mpa.gov). 
Figures Figures-43

Figure 4-36. Aids to Navigation, Shipping Lanes, Precaution Areas, Fairways, and Traffic Separation 

Schemes along the Atlantic Coast (Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, 2011). 
Figures-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-37. Military Use, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-Restricted, and 

Ordnance Disposal Areas along the Atlantic Coast (Naval Facilities Engineering Command; 

33 CFR § 334.595; 33 CFR § 334.130). 
Figures Figures-45

Figure 4-38. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Coasts (Mid-Atlantic areas are shown in Figure 4-38a, South Atlantic areas are 

shown in Figure 4-38b, and Florida areas are shown in Figure 4-38c.).
Figures-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-38a. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the Mid-Atlantic Coast.
Figures Figures-47

Figure 4-38b. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the South Atlantic Coast.
Figures-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-38c. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas along the Florida Coast.
Figures Figures-49

Figure 4-39. Identified Offshore Wind Planning Areas (inclusive of actual leased areas and/or wind energy 

areas) along the Mid-Atlantic Coast (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c,d,e).
Figures-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-40. Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites along the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts.
Figures Figures-51

Figure 4-41. Locations of the 51 Wells Drilled on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) between 1975 

and 1984 (also shown is the location of the proposed OCS oil and gas Lease Sale 220 area 

offshore Virginia [lease sale was canceled on July 28, 2010]). 
Figures-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 4-42. Location of U.S. Navy Research Towers in the Georgia Bight that are Part of the South Atlantic Bight 

Synoptic Offshore Observational Network (SABSOON) Operated by Skidaway Institute of 

Oceanography (Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, 2011). 
Figures Figures-53

Figure 4-43. Existing Submarine Cables Located in the Area of Interest (USDOC, NOAA, 2006). 
Figures-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure 5-1. State-by-State Distribution Showing the Origin of Scoping Comments (primarily those submitted 

April 2 – May 17, 2010) (RapLeaf.com). 
TABLES

Tables Tables-3 

Table 1-1 

Major Federal Laws and Regulations Applicable to the Proposed Action

Regulation or Law Citation

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347

40 CFR parts 1500-1508

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.

15 CFR § 930.76

Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation (in 1996 reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act)

P.L. 94-265

16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1891

50 CFR part 600 subpart K

Marine Mammal Protection Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq.

Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.

40 CFR part 55

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667c

Clean Water Act Amendment to Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1972

Clean Water Act—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act P.L. 105-383

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.

Executive Order 12777

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq. 

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq. 

National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 33 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. 

Fishermen’s Contingency Fund 43 U.S.C. §§ 1841-1846

Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 33 U.S.C. §§ 1223 et seq.

Marine and Estuarine Protection Acts 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 P.L. 92-532

National Estuarine Research Reserves 16 U.S.C. § 1461, section 315

National Estuary Program P.L. 104-4

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq. 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678q

Energy Policy Act of 2005 P.L. 109-58

Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act P.L. 109-449

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 P.L. 95-341

42 U.S.C. §§ 1996 and 1996a

Federal Aviation Act of 1958

Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was 

repealed by the recodification of 

49 U.S.C. (P.L. 103-272)
Tables-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 1-1. Major Federal Laws and Regulations Applicable to the Proposed Action (continued). 

Regulation or Law Citation

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712; Ch. 128; 

07/13/1918; 40 Stat. 755

Submerged Lands Act of 1953 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1315 (2002)

49 U.S.C. 44718: Structures Interfering with Air Commerce 49 U.S.C. § 44718

U.S. Coast Guard Regulations

Marking of Obstructions 14 U.S.C. § 86

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 42 FR 26951 (1977), amended by 

Executive Order 12148 (7/20/79)

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 42 FR 26961 (1977), amended by 

Executive Order 12608 (9/9/87)

Executive Order 12114: Environmental Effects Abroad 44 FR 1957 (1979)

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 59 FR 5517 (1994)

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites 61 FR 26771-26772 (1996)

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (1999)

Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection 63 FR 32701-32703 (1998)

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 65 FR 67249-67252 (2000)

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds 66 FR 3853 (2001)

Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes 75 FR 43023 (2010)

Source: Matthews and Cameron, 2010.
Tables Tables-5

Table 1-2 

BOEM’s G&G Permits Requiring Consistency Review under 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart D for Approved State Coastal Zone Management Programs

State

Possesses Defined 

Geographic 

Location 

Description (GLD)?

Oil and Gas1

30 CFR part 550

Renewable Energy1 

30 CFR part 585

Sand and Gravel1

30 CFR part 580 

G&G Seismic

30 CFR part 551

New Jersey Yes Yes, OCS leases and 

pre-leasing activities, and any 

federally licensed or permitted 

activity described in any OCS 

plan for all lease sales on the 

OCS of the United States under 

which New Jersey is identified 

as an “affected state.”

Yes, OCS leases and 

pre-leasing activities, and any 

federally licensed or permitted 

activity described in any OCS 

plan for all lease sales on the 

OCS of the United States under 

which New Jersey is identified 

as an “affected state.”

Yes, through interstate 

consistency when sand and 

gravel operations under the 

authority of the Army Corps of 

Engineers as the lead Federal 

agency that may affect New 

Jersey’s coastal zone occur in 

Pennsylvania or Delaware.

Yes, OCS leases and pre-leasing 

activities, and any federally 

licensed or permitted activity 

described in any OCS plan for all 

lease sales on the OCS of the 

United States under which New 

Jersey is identified as an 

“affected state.”

Delaware No Yes, “Leases, permits, approval 

of OCS exploration and 

production plans, and other 

authorizations under the 

OCSLA”... for activities that 

include oil and gas. (Section 

3.2.8.7 of Delaware Coastal 

Management Program, 2011.)

Yes, “Leases, permits, approval 

under the OCSLA”... for 

activities that include 

alternative energy. (Section 

3.2.8.7 of Delaware Coastal 

Management Program, 2011.)

No Yes, “Leases, permits, approval 

of OCS exploration and 

production plans, and other 

authorizations under the 

OCSLA”... for activities that 

include oil and gas. (Section 

3.2.8.7 of Delaware Coastal 

Management Program, 2011.)

Maryland No No No No No

Virginia No No No No No

North Carolina No No No No No

South Carolina No No No No Yes, permits related to geological 

and geophysical exploration.

Georgia No No No No No

Florida No Yes, permits for G&G 

exploration activities under the 

OCSLA when such activities 

about the Gulf of Mexico or 

Atlantic Ocean. See Florida 

Statute 380.23(3)(c)(7).

No No Yes, permits for G&G 

exploration activities under the 

OCSLA when such activities 

about the Gulf of Mexico or 

Atlantic Ocean. See Florida 

Statute 380.23(3)(c)(7).

1 A State cannot review permits approved by BOEM until the State has an approved GLD, or NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

approves a State’s unlisted activity request on a case-by-case basis (15 CFR § 930.54).

* G&G activities under 30 CFR part 550 and part 585 are actuated by the approval process for OCS plans and not the issuance of permits, as is the case for 

30 CFR part 551.
Tables-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 2-1 

Summary of Mitigation Measures Included in Alternatives A and B

Mitigation Measure Description Applicable Survey Types Program Area Alternative

OG RE MM A B

Guidance for Vessel 

Strike Avoidance

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include 

guidance for vessel strike avoidance while a vessel is in transit. The guidance would address 

protected species identification, vessel strike avoidance, and injured/dead protected species 

reporting. The guidance would also incorporate elements of the NMFS Compliance Guide for 

the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105).

All surveys involving 

ships (in transit and 

during data collection 

operations) 

X X X X X 

Guidance for 

Marine Debris 

Awareness

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for shipboard surveys would include 

guidance for marine debris awareness. The guidance would be similar to 

NTL No. 2012-BSEE-G01 (Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination). The 

applicant would be required to ensure that its employees and contractors are made aware of the 

environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with marine trash and debris and their 

responsibilities for ensuring that trash and debris are not discharged into the marine 

environment.

All vessel surveys X X X X X 

Avoidance and 

Reporting of 

Historic and 

Prehistoric sites

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for G&G activities that involve 

seafloor-disturbing activities would include requirements for operators to report suspected 

historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to the BOEM and to take precautions to 

protect the resource. BOEM would also require reporting and avoidance for any previously 

undiscovered suspected archaeological resource and precautions to protect the resource from 

operational activities while appropriate mitigation measures are developed.

All surveys involving 

seafloor activities 

including coring, grab 

sampling, and placement 

of bottom cables, nodes, 

or buoys

X X X X X 

Avoidance of 

Sensitive Benthic 

Communities 

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for seafloor-disturbing activities would be 

subject to restrictions to protect sensitive benthic communities (e.g., hard/live bottom areas, 

deepwater coral communities, and chemosynthetic communities). In areas where these 

communities are known or suspected, authorizations may include requirements for mapping 

and avoidance, as well as pre-deployment photographic survey of areas where bottom-founded 

instrumentation and appurtenances are to be deployed.

All surveys involving 

seafloor activities 

including coring, grab 

sampling, and placement 

of bottom cables, nodes, 

or buoys

X X X X X 

Guidance for 

Activities in or near 

National Marine 

Sanctuaries

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for G&G activities would include 

instructions to minimize impacts on NMS resources. BOEM would not authorize 

seafloor-disturbing activities within the boundaries of an NMS, and seafloor-disturbing 

activities proposed near the boundaries of an NMS would be assigned a setback distance as a 

condition of permit approval to be determined by BOEM in consultation with the Sanctuary 

Manager. All authorizations for G&G activities would include instructions to minimize 

impacts on NMS resources and users. If proposed activities involve seafloor disturbance near 

an NMS or moving the surface marker buoys for the Sanctuary, the operator would be 

required to contact the Sanctuary Manager for instructions.

All surveys X X X X X 

Guidance for 

Military and NASA 

Coordination 

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for permitted activities would include 

guidance for military and NASA coordination. Vessel and aircraft operators would be 

required to establish and maintain early contact and coordination with the appropriate military 

command headquarters or NASA point of contact. Department of Defense (DoD)/BOEM 

Interagency Working Groups have been formed specifically to address potential conflicts of 

BOEM permitted G&G surveys and DoD operations in the Atlantic. 

All surveys X X X X X 
Tables Tables-7

Table 2-1. Summary of Applicable Existing Regulations, Survey Protocols, and Mitigation Measures (continued).

Mitigation Measure Description Applicable Survey Types Program Area Alternative

OG RE MM A B

Time-Area Closure 

for North Atlantic 

Right Whales

(NARW) for 

Seismic Surveys

Under Alternative A, no G&G surveys using air guns would be authorized within the NARW

critical habitat area from November 15 through April 15 nor within the Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeast U.S. Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) between November 1 and April 30. 

Additionally, G&G surveys using airguns would not be allowed in active Dynamic 

Management Areas (DMA). Airgun surveys conducted outside of the critical habitat, SMAs, 

or DMAs would be required to remain at a distance such that received levels at those 

boundaries do not exceed the Level B harassment threshold, as determined by field 

verification or modeling. Airgun surveys conducted outside of the critical habitat, SMAs, or 

DMAs would be required to remain at a distance such that received levels at those boundaries 

do not exceed the Level B harassment threshold as determined by field verification or 

modeling.

All seismic surveys 

(restrictions vary 

depending on survey 

location as indicated)

X X X X X 

Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for seismic airgun surveys (those 

involving airguns as an acoustic source) would include a survey protocol that specifies 

mitigation measures for protected species, including an acoustic exclusion zone, ramp-up 

requirements, visual monitoring by protected species observers prior to and during seismic 

surveys, and startup and shutdown requirements (see Appendix C). The protocol for 

Alternative A includes the optional use of PAM to help detect vocalizing marine mammals.

All deep penetration 

seismic surveys and all 

HRG surveys using 

airguns as sound source

X Xa --a X X 

Time-Area Closure 

for North Atlantic 

Right Whales

(NARW) for HRG 

Surveys 

Under both Alternatives A and B only HRG surveys operating at frequencies above 30 kHz 

would be allowed to occur within NARW critical habitat from November 15 through April 15. 

Use of frequencies at and below 30 kHz would be evaluated by BOEM on a critical need 

basis, considering whether survey planning could have scheduled survey activities outside of 

the calving and nursing season and how the particular survey fills a critical need and would be 

authorized during daylight hours only. Use of all sound sources operating at and below 30 kHz 

in a DMA must be discontinued within 24 hr of its establishment. In addition, surveys 

authorized by BOEM outside, but in proximity of, DMA boundaries are required to remain at 

a distance such that received levels, for all sound sources, at these boundaries are no more than

the Level B threshold.

All HRG surveys not 

using airguns as sound 

source 

X X X X X 

Expanded 

Time-Area Closure 

for North Atlantic 

Right Whales

(NARW)

Under Alternative B the expanded time-area closure for NARWs would be a 37-km (20-nmi) 

wide zone from shore extending continuously from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the 

AOI. Under the expanded time-area closure, no G&G surveys using air guns would be 

authorized within the NARW critical habitat area from November 15 through April 15, the

Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs between November 1 and April 30, the expanded

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMAs between November 1 and April 30, and the expanded Southeast U.S. 

SMA between November 15 and April 15. In addition, G&G surveys using air guns would 

not be allowed in active DMA. Airgun surveys conducted outside of the critical habitat, 

SMAs, expanded closure areas, or DMAs would be required to remain at a distance such that 

received levels at those boundaries do not exceed the Level B harassment threshold as 

determined by field verification or modeling.

All vessel surveys 

(restrictions vary 

depending on survey type 

as indicated)

X X X -- X 

HRG Survey 

Protocol 

Under both Alternatives A and B, all authorizations for non-airgun HRG surveys would 

include a survey protocol that specifies mitigation measures including visual monitoring of a

vessel strike exclusion zone. An acoustic exclusion zone would only be required for HRG 

surveys conducted with sound sources operating at and below 200 kHz (see Appendix C).

All HRG surveys not 

using airguns as sound 

source 

-- X X X X 
Tables-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 2-1. Summary of Applicable Existing Regulations, Survey Protocols, and Mitigation Measures (continued).

Mitigation Measure Description Applicable Survey Types Program Area Alternative

OG RE MM A B

Time-Area Closure 

to Protect Nesting 

Sea Turtles Offshore 

Brevard County, 

Florida 

Alternative B would include a time-area closure in near-coastal waters offshore Brevard 

County, Florida during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 to October 31). No airgun surveys 

would be authorized within the closure area during this time. HRG surveys using HRG 

non-airgun sources outside the hearing range of sea turtles, would be allowed year-round, 

including, between May 1 and October 31, within the Sea Turtle Closure Area. Devices 

operating above 1.6 kHz would be outside the hearing range of sea turtles. 

All vessel surveys 

(restrictions vary 

depending on survey type 

as indicated)

X X X -- X 

Geographic 

Separation between 

Simultaneous 

Seismic Surveys

Under Alternative B, a 40-km (25-mi) geographic separation distance between simultaneously 

operating deep penetration seismic surveys to limit ensonification of large areas of the AOI at 

the same time would be evaluated by BOEM at the site-specific NEPA and environmental 

analyses level. BOEM will consider any new information available at that time to evaluate 

implementation of this measure.

All deep penetration 

seismic surveys X Xa --a -- X 

Seismic Airgun 

Survey Protocol 

with Required PAM

Under Alternative B, the use of PAM would be required as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol (rather than optional or “encourages” as in Alternative A). The purpose would be to 

improve detection of marine mammals prior to and during seismic surveys so that impacts can 

be avoided by shutting down or delaying startup of airgun arrays until the animals are outside 

the acoustic exclusion zone. 

All deep penetration 

seismic surveys and all 

HRG surveys using 

airguns as sound source

X Xa --a -- X 

HRG Survey 

Protocol with 

Required Additional 

Monitoring Methods

Under Alternative B, the use of PAM could be required as part of the HRG Survey Protocol 

under certain circumstances. HRG sound sources operating at frequencies at and below 200 

kHz may operate during nighttime or periods of reduced visibility provided that additional 

monitoring technology is utilized. In those cases operators must monitor the waters around 

the acoustic exclusion zone using available effective monitoring technologies that may also 

include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment, or PAM, this 

provision would apply year-round. 

All HRG surveys not 

using airguns as sound 

source operating at night 

or during periods of 

reduced visibility

X X X X 

Implementation of 

Adaptive 

Management 

Strategy

BOEM would use an adaptive management strategy where BOEM may require additional 

measures if warranted or adjust programmatic mitigations as needed based upon new 

information and the site-specific environmental analyses.

All sources X X X X X 

Abbreviations: AOI = Area of Interest; BOEM = Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; DMA = dynamic management area; G&G = 

geological & geophysical; HRG = high-resolution geophysical; MM = marine minerals; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NMFS = National Marine 

Fisheries Service; NTL = Notice to Lessees and Operators; OG = oil and gas; PAM = passive acoustic monitoring; RE = renewable energy; SMA = Seasonal Management 

Area.

a The BOEM does not expect that airguns would typically be used in HRG surveys for renewable energy or marine minerals sites. However, the renewable energy scenario 

includes the possibility of a deep penetration seismic survey to evaluate formation suitability for carbon sequestration.
Tables Tables-9

Table 2-2 

Applicability of Mitigation Measures to G&G Survey Types under Alternative A 

Survey Type

Time-Area Closures Other Applicable Mitigation

Right Whale 

Critical Habitat 

(Nov 15-Apr 15) 

Mid-Atlantic 

and Southeast 

U.S.SMA 

(Nov 1-Apr 30)

DMAs Rest of 

AOI

Seismic 

Airgun 

Survey 

Protocol

HRG 

Survey 

Protocol 

Vessel 

Strike 

Avoidance 

Marine 

Debris 

Guidance 

Avoidance 

of Historic 

& Prehistoric 

Sites

Avoidance of 

Sensitive 

Benthic 

Communities

NMS 

Guidance

Military 

& NASA 

Guidance 

Seismic 

Airgun 

Surveys

X X X -- X -- X X X1 X1 X X 

Non-airgun 

HRG 

Surveys with 

frequencies 

>200 kHz

-- -- -- -- --

X 

(but no 

Acoustic 

Exclusion 

Zone)

X X X1 X1 X X 

Non-airgun 

HRG 

Surveys with 

frequencies 

≤200 kHz

-- -- -- -- --

X 

(including 

Acoustic 

Exclusion 

Zone)

X X X1 X1 X X 

Non-airgun 

HRG 

Surveys with 

at least one 

source 

having 

frequencies 

≤30 kHz

X 

(unless survey is 

critical)

--

X 

(unless 

survey is 

critical)

-- --

X 

(including 

Acoustic 

Exclusion 

Zone) 

X X X1 X1 X X 

Other G&G 

Surveys -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X1 X1 X X 

An “X” indicates the time-area closure or mitigation measure is applicable.

AOI = Area of Interest; DMA = Dynamic Management Area; G&G = geological & geophysical; HRG = high-resolution geophysical; NASA = National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration; NMS = National Marine Sanctuary; SMA = Seasonal Management Area.

1 Avoidance of historic and prehistoric sites and sensitive benthic communities applies only to surveys that involve seafloor-disturbing activities. Seismic 

airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys that do not disturb the seafloor are not required to avoid these sites or features. Non-airgun HRG surveys and 

most seismic airgun surveys (except those in which cables or sensors are placed in or on the seafloor) do not disturb the seafloor.
Tables-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 2-3 

 

Observer Requirements for G&G Survey Types

Survey Type

Protected Species 

Observer (PSO) 

Required?

PSO Affiliation

(Third Party, Crew, 

or Combination)

PSO Watch Requirements

No. of PSOs on Duty 

when Acoustic 

Sources Operating

Total No. of PSOs 

Onboard Vessel Strike Avoidance

Seismic airgun 

survey with 

no passive 

acoustic 

monitoring 

(PAM) 

Yes1 Third party 1. Other than brief alerts to bridge 

personnel of maritime hazards, no 

additional duties during watch.

2. A watch shall be no longer than four 

consecutive hours.

3. A break of at least two hours shall occur 

between 4-hr watches, with no other 

duties during this period.

4. A PSO’s combined watch schedule shall 

not exceed 12 hr in a 24-hr period.

2 visual PSOs

(daylight only)

At least 3 (based 

on watch 

requirements) 

• Handled by PSOs when airguns 

are operating.

• When vessel is in transit or other 

times when airguns not 

operating, could be done by PSO 

or crew member.

Seismic airgun 

survey with PAM

Yes1 Third party Same as above 2 visual PSOs

(daylight only)

1 PAM operator

At least 4 (based 

on watch 

requirements; 

3 visual PSOs 

plus PAM 

operator(s))

Same as above.

HRG survey with 

acoustic exclusion 

zone but 

NO additional 

monitoring 

technologies 

Yes2 Third party, crew, or 

combination (but no 

other duties)

Same as above 1 visual PSO

(daylight only)

At least 2 (based 

on watch 

requirements) 

• Handled by PSOs when acoustic 

sources are operating. 

• When vessel is in transit or other 

times when acoustic source are 

not operating, could be done by 

PSO or other crew member. 

HRG survey with 

acoustic exclusion 

zone and 

additional 

monitoring 

technologies

Yes2 Third party, crew, or 

combination (but no 

other duties)

Same as above 1 visual PSO

1 PAM operator (as 

applicable) 

2 to 4 (based on 

watch 

requirements) 

plus PAM 

operator(s) as 

applicable

Same as above.

HRG survey with 

NO acoustic 

exclusion zone 

(all freq. 

>200 kHz) 

No N/A N/A None None Handled by crew member as part of 

navigational duties.

Other G&G 

surveys

No N/A N/A None None Handled by crew member as part of 

navigational duties. 

N/A = Not applicable. 1 A PSO for a seismic airgun survey is someone who has successfully completed an approved PSO training course meeting the recommendations of the NOAA Fisheries Service 

“National Standards for Protected Species Observers and Data Management: A Model for Seismic Surveys.” (Baker et al., 2013) All PSO resumes must be submitted to 

BOEM for approval prior to survey operations. 2 A PSO for an HRG survey is someone who has been approved by NMFS . All PSO resumes must be submitted to NMFS for approval prior to survey operations.
Tables Tables-11

Table 2-4 

Comparison of Impact Levels for Alternatives A, B, and C

Resource and 

Impact-Producing Factor

Alternativea

A B C

Benthic Communities

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Negligible Negligible N/A

Electromechanical sources Negligible Negligible Negligible

Trash and Debris Negligible Negligible Negligible

Seafloor Disturbance Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Drilling Discharges Negligible Negligible N/A

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible Negligible Negligible

Marine Mammals

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Moderate Moderate N/A

Electromechanical sources Minor Minor Minor

Vessel and Equipment Noise Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Vessel Traffic Negligible Negligible Negligible

Aircraft Traffic and Noise Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor N/A

Trash and Debris Negligible Negligible Negligible

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Sea Turtles

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Minor-Moderate Negligible-Minor N/A

Electromechanical sources Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Vessel and Equipment Noise Negligible Negligible Negligible

Vessel Traffic Negligible Negligible Negligible

Aircraft Traffic and Noise Negligible Negligible N/A

Trash and Debris Negligible Negligible Negligible

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Marine and Coastal Birds

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor N/A

Electromechanical sources Negligible Negligible Negligible

Vessel and Equipment Noise Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Vessel Traffic Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Aircraft Traffic and Noise Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor N/A

Trash and Debris Negligible Negligible Negligible

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible-Moderate Negligible-Moderate Negligible-Moderate
Tables-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 2-4. Comparison for Impact Levels for Alternatives A, B, and C (continued).

Resource and 

Impact-Producing Factor

Alternativea

A B C 

Fisheries Resources and EFH

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Minor-Moderate Minor-Moderate N/A

Electromechanical sources Minor Minor- Negligible

Vessel and Equipment Noise Minor Minor Negligible

Seafloor Disturbance Negligible Negligible Negligible

Drilling Discharges Negligible Negligible N/A

Accidental Fuel Spills Minor Minor Minor

Threatened and Endangered Fishes

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor N/A

Electromechanical sources Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Vessel and Equipment Noise Negligible Negligible Negligible

Vessel Traffic Negligible Negligible Negligible

Trash and Debris Negligible Negligible Negligible

Seafloor Disturbance Negligible Negligible Negligible

Drilling Discharges Negligible Negligible N/A

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible Negligible Negligible

Commercial Fisheries

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Minor Minor N/A

Electromechanical sources Minor Minor Negligible-Minor

Vessel Traffic Minor Minor Negligible

Vessel Exclusion Zones Minor Minor N/A

Seafloor Disturbance Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Recreational Fisheries

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor N/A

Electromechanical sources Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Vessel Traffic Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Vessel Exclusion Zones Negligible Negligible N/A

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Recreational Resources

Vessel Exclusion Zones Negligible Negligible N/A

Trash and Debris Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor
Tables Tables-13

Table 2.4. Comparison for Impact Levels for Alternatives A, B, and C (continued).

Resource and 

Impact-Producing Factor

Alternativea

A B C 

Archaeological Resources

Seafloor Disturbance Negligible Negligible Negligible

Drilling Discharges Negligible Negligible N/A

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible Negligible Negligible

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Negligible-Moderate Negligible-Minor N/A

Electromechanical sources Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible

Trash and Debris Negligible Negligible Negligible

Seafloor Disturbance Negligible Negligible Negligible

Drilling Discharges Negligible Negligible N/A

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible-Moderate Negligible-Moderate Negligible-Moderate

Other Marine Uses

Vessel Traffic Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor

Vessel Exclusion Zones Negligible-Minor Negligible-Minor N/A

Aircraft Traffic and Noise Negligible Negligible N/A

Seafloor Disturbance Negligible Negligible Negligible

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible Negligible Negligible

Human Resources and Land Use

Onshore Support Activity Negligible Negligible Negligible

Accidental Fuel Spills Negligible Negligible Negligible

Note: Impacts are categorized as Major, Moderate, Minor, or Negligible (see Chapter 4.1.2 for definitions). 

Shading indicates impacts that are reduced by at least one category relative to impacts of Alternative A.

N/A = not applicable (the impact-producing factor would not occur under this Alternative). a Alternative A = The Proposed Action. Alternative B = Additional Time-Area Closures and Separation of

Simultaneous Seismic Airgun Surveys. Alternative C = No Action for Oil and Gas, Status Quo for Renewable 

Energy and Marine Minerals G&G Activities. 
Tables-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 2-5 

Applicability of Time-Area Closures and Other Mitigation to G&G Survey Types under Alternative B 

Survey Type

Time-Area Closures Other Applicable Mitigation

NARW Critical 

Habitat 

(Nov 15-Apr 15) 

Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeast U.S. 

SMA

(Nov 1-Apr 30)

Additional 20-nmi 

Closure Zone North

(Nov 1–April 30)

Additional 20-nmi 

Closure Zone South

(Nov 15–April 15)

Sea Turtle Closure 

Off Brevard County

(May 1–Oct 31)

DMAs Rest of AOI

Seismic 

Airgun 

Survey 

Protocol

HRG Survey 

Protocol 

Seismic Airgun 

Surveys X X X X X X -- X --

Non-airgun 

HRG Surveys 

with frequencies 

>200 kHz

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

X 

(but no 

acoustic 

exclusion 

zone)

Non-airgun 

HRG Surveys 

with frequencies 

≤200 kHz

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

X 

(including 

acoustic 

exclusion 

zone)

Non-airgun 

HRG Surveys 

with at least one 

source having 

frequencies 

≤30 kHz but no 

sources 

<1.6 kHz

X 

(unless survey is 

critical)

-- -- -- --

X 

(unless 

survey is 

critical)

-- --

X 

(including 

acoustic 

exclusion 

zone) 

Non-airgun 

HRG Surveys 

with at least one 

source <1.6 kHz 

X 

(unless survey is 

critical)

-- -- --

X 

(unless survey is 

critical)

X 

(unless 

survey is 

critical)

-- --

X 

(including 

acoustic 

exclusion 

zone)

Other G&G 

Surveys -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

An “X” indicates the time-area closure or mitigation measure is applicable.

Shading highlights closures and measures that are unique to Alternative B.
Tables Tables-15

Table 2-5. Applicability of Time-Area Closures and Other Mitigation to G&G Survey Types under Alternative B (continued). 

Survey Type

Other Applicable Mitigation

Vessel Strike 

Avoidance 

Marine 

Debris 

Guidance 

Avoidance of 

Historic & 

Prehistoric Sites

Avoidance of 

Sensitive Benthic 

Communities

NMS Guidance Military & NASA 

Guidance 

Geographic 

Separation of 

Concurrent 

Seismic Surveys

Required use of 

PAM in Seismic 

Airgun Survey 

Protocol 

Required use of 

Additional 

Monitoring 

Technologies in 

HRG Survey 

Protocol2

Seismic Airgun 

Surveys X X X1 X1 X X X X --

Non-airgun HRG 

Surveys with 

frequencies 

>200 kHz

X X X1 X1 X X -- -- --

Non-airgun HRG 

Surveys with 

frequencies 

≤200 kHz

X X X1 X1 X X -- -- X 

Non-airgun HRG 

Surveys with at 

least one source 

having 

frequencies 

≤30 kHz but no 

sources <1.6 kHz

X X X1 X1 X X -- -- X 

Non-airgun HRG 

Surveys with at 

least one source 

<1.6 kHz

X X X1 X1 X X -- -- X 

Other G&G 

Surveys X X X1 X1 X X -- -- --

AOI = Area of Interest; DMA = Dynamic Management Area; G&G = geological & geophysical; HRG = high-resolution geophysical; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration; NMS = National Marine Sanctuary; PAM = passive acoustic monitoring; SMA = Seasonal Management Area. 1 Avoidance of historic and prehistoric sites and sensitive benthic communities applies only to surveys that involve seafloor-disturbing activities. Seismic airgun surveys and 

non-airgun HRG surveys that do not disturb the seafloor are not required to avoid these sites or features. Non-airgun HRG surveys and most seismic airgun surveys (except those in 

which cables or sensors are placed in or on the seafloor) do not disturb the seafloor.

2 The requirement for additional monitoring technologies for HRG surveys applies only to surveys at night or during conditions of reduced visibility.
Tables-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 2-6 

Time-Area Closure Summary

Attribute

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Airgun Non-Airgun 

HRG Airgun Non-Airgun HRG OG RE MMa

AOI Area Closed (acres)

NARW Critical Habitat 1,419,485 N/Aa 1,419,485b N/Aa N/A # #

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA 5,354,942 N/A 5,354,942 b N/A N/A # #

Southeast U.S. SMA 2,235,613 N/A 2,235,613 b N/A N/A # #

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA Additional N/A N/A 4,905,477 N/A N/A # #

Additional Southern Closure Zone N/A N/A 1,429,128 N/A N/A # #

Sea Turtle N/A N/A 312,764 N/A N/A # #

Percent of Total AOI Area Closed (calculated from areas above with total AOI as denominator)

NARW Critical Habitat 0.67 N/Aa 0.67 N/Aa N/A # #

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA 2.52 N/A 2.54 N/A N/A # #

Southeast U.S. SMA 1.05 N/A 1.06 N/A N/A # #

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA Additional N/A N/A 2.32 N/A N/A # #

Additional Southern Closure Zone N/A N/A 0.68 N/A N/A # #

Sea Turtle N/A N/A 0.15 N/A N/A # #

AOI Months Per Year Closed

NARW Critical Habitat 6 0 6 0 N/A 0 0

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA 7 0 7 0 N/A 0 0

Southeast U.S. SMA 6 0 6 0 N/A 0 0

Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA Additional 0 0 7 0 N/A 0 0

Additional Southern Closure Zone 0 0 6 0 N/A 0 0

Sea Turtle 0 0 6 0 N/A 0 0

a Assumes that NAWR critical habitat time-area closures for non-airgun HRG surveys would only be for specific cases where source frequency is ≤30 kHz 

and survey is not determined to be critical. b Based on the requirement that during the time-area closures, airgun surveys authorized outside of the 20-nmi buffer zone of critical habitat and U.S. SMAs 

shall operate at distances such that received levels at the boundaries of these areas shall not exceed 160 dB 1μPa (rms) as determined by field verification or 

modeling. An additional closure zone ranging from 2.8-8.3 nmi from the closure area boundary could apply based on the sources modeled in Appendix D. 

# Alternative C existing requirements for renewable and marine minerals activities are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and time-area closures are not 

defined programmatically.
Tables Tables-17

Table 2-7 

Estimated Protected Species Observer (PSO) and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) costs for Proposed Atlantic 2D Surveys

Permit Application Estimated Survey Cost Estimated PSO Costs Percent Increase in Cost Estimated PAM Costs Percent Increase in Cost 

E-5-01 $8.21 M $80,455-$120.715 0.98-1.47 $163,180-$183,910 1.99-2.24

E-6-03 $37.6 M $392,665-$577,045 1.04-1.53 $595,540-$688,330 1.58-1.83

E-08-004 $15.4 M $161,985-$237,405 1.05-1.54 $268,660-$306,970 1.74-1.99

E09-01 $89 M $933,875-$1,370,375 1.04-1.53 $1,351,960-$1,570,810 1.52-1.76

E09-02 $51.0 M $537,430-$787,390 1.05-1.54 $792,280-$917,860 1.55-1.79

E09-03 $56.0 M $590,690-$865,370 1.05-1.54 $866,440-$1,004,380 1.54-1.79

E09-05 $205.9 M $2,172,150-$3,185,370 1.05-1.54 $3,080,980-$3,588,010 1.49-1.74

E09-009 $23.7 M $243,700-$360,100 1.03-1.51 $391,600-$450,400 1.65-1.90

* Based on submitted permit applications (but do not include proposed locations within the North Atlantic Planning Area) and estimated total surveys costs. 

** Estimated survey costs were calculated based on an estimated cost per day of $122,400, which included both survey and processing costs.

Total estimated survey costs were calculated by multiplying cost per day by duration.

Estimated duration is time (in days) required to complete the survey, which includes both time when the acoustic source would be active and estimated down 

time. This includes a 10 percent re-shoot of line increments after any vessel shut-down and assumes a constant vessel speed of 4.5 knots. Down time is 

estimated by industry to be ~50 percent. 
Tables-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-1 

Types of G&G Activities Included in This Programmatic EIS

Survey Type

Applicable Program Areas

Oil and Purpose(s)

Gas

Renewable 

Energy

Marine 

Minerals

Deep Penetration Seismic Surveys

Evaluate subsurface geological 

formations to assess potential 

hydrocarbon reservoirs and 

optimally site exploration and 

development wells. 4D surveys are 

used to monitor reservoirs over 

time during production.

2D Seismic Exploration Surveys X xa --

3D Seismic Exploration Surveys X xa --

Wide Azimuth Surveys X -- --

Nodes and Bottom Cable Surveys X -- --

Vertical Cable Surveys X -- --

4D (Time-Lapse) Surveys X -- --

Vertical Seismic Profile Surveys X -- --

High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys Assess shallow hazards, 

archaeological resources, and 

benthic habitats

With single airgun as seismic source X X --

With boomer or chirp subbottom profiler 

as seismic source -- X X 

Electromagnetic Surveys Help distinguish economic 

hydrocarbon accumulations from 

other scenarios by using 

electromagnetic signals to develop 

a conductivity/resistivity profile of 

the seafloor.

Controlled Source Electromagnetic 

Surveys X -- --

Magnetotelluric Surveys X -- --

Deep Stratigraphic and Shallow Test Drilling COST wells evaluate stratigraphy 

and hydrocarbon potential without 

drilling directly into oil and gas 

bearing strata. Shallow test drilling 

is conducted to place test 

equipment into a borehole to 

evaluate gas hydrates or other 

properties.

Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test 

(COST) wells X -- --

Shallow test drilling X -- --

Bottom Sampling

Collect surface and near-surface 

sediment samples to assess seafloor 

properties for siting structures such 

as platforms, pipelines, or cables.

Cone Penetrometer Tests X X X

Vibracoring X X X

Geologic Coring X X X

Grab Sampling X X X

Remote Sensing Gravity and magnetic surveys are 

used to assess structure and 

sedimentary properties of 

subsurface horizons.

Radar imaging is used to detect oil 

slicks on the sea surface (indicative 

of seepage). Aeromagnetic surveys 

evaluate deep crustal structure, salt 

related structure, and 

intra-sedimentary anomalies.

Gravity Surveys X -- --

Gravity Gradiometry X -- --

Marine Magnetic Surveys X -- --

Radar Imaging X -- --

Aeromagnetic Surveys X -- --

a The renewable energy scenario includes the possibility that a deep penetration (2D or 3D) seismic survey would be 

conducted to evaluate formation suitability for carbon sequestration. However, given the much greater number 

and extent of seismic surveys included in the oil and gas scenario, a single seismic survey for carbon sequestration 

is not analyzed separately in this Programmatic EIS. 
Tables Tables-19

Table 3-2 

Program Area, G&G Activity, Permitting Authority, and Typical NEPA Action

G&G Activity in Support of On 

Lease

Off Lease 

and/or 

Third Party

Permitting Authority

How Approved Typical NEPA 

OCS Plan1 Permit Action

Application

Oil and Gas

Exploration (post lease) X 30 CFR part 550 EP EA or EIS

Development (post lease) X 30 CFR part 550 DOCD or 

DPP EA or EIS

Ancillary Activities (post 

lease) X 30 CFR part 550 Conditional, Plan Revision Notification Conditional, EA

Exploration (prelease) X 30 CFR part 551 None X EA or EIS

Scientific Research X 30 CFR part 551 None X EA

Renewable Energy

Site Assessment X 30 CFR part 585 SAP EA or EIS

Renewable Energy Facility 

Development X 30 CFR part 585 COP EA or EIS

Other Activities X 30 CFR part 585 GAP EA or EIS

Marine Minerals

Research and Prospecting X OCSLA Section 11 

30 CFR part 5802 None 

Authorization 

or 

Notification

EA or EIS

Leasing-Related 

Monitoring X OCSLA Section 8(k)30 CFR parts 581-5822 None None None3

1 Plan types defined in Chapters 3.2.1 and 3.3.1. 2 Applies to competitive leasing only, which this Agency has never done for marine minerals. 3 Addressed in NEPA document for prospecting.
Tables-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-3 

Projected Levels of G&G Activities for Oil and Gas Exploration in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020

Year

Mid-Atlantic Planning Area South Atlantic Planning Area

2D 

(km)

3D 

(blocks)a

WAZ 

(blocks)b

HRG 

(line km)

VSP 

(line km)

CSEM 

(line km)

2D 

(km)

3D 

(blocks)a

WAZ 

(blocks)b

HRG 

(line km)

VSP 

(line km)

CSEM 

(line km)

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2014 83,400 0 0 0 0 0 28,450 0 0 0 0 0

2015 160,950 0 0 0 0 0 56,900 0 0 0 0 0

2016 12,875 400 0 0 0 3,220 8,050 300 0 0 0 1,600

2017 64,375 200 0 0 0 16,100 48,300 200 0 3,220 0 8,050

2018 41,800 200 100 3,220 0 32,200 38,624 200 100 32,200 0 9,650

2019 16,100 200 100 16,100 160 16,100 32,200 200 200 16,100 320 320

2020 16,100 300 200 64,375 320 32,200 8,050 300 200 40,250 480 320

TOTAL 395,600 1,300 400 83,695 480 99,820 220,574 1,200 500 91,770 800 19,940

Abbreviations: 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional; CSEM = controlled source electromagnetic; HRG = high-resolution geophysical; 

VSP = vertical seismic profile; WAZ = wide azimuth. a 3D surveys include ocean bottom cable and nodal surveys, vertical cable surveys, and 4D (time-lapse) surveys. Typically, one OCS block is 9 mi2

(23.3 km2

, 2,331 ha, or 5,760 ac). b WAZ estimates include coil shooting (exclusive to WesternGeco).
Tables Tables-21

Table 3-4 

 

Projected Levels of Miscellaneous G&G Activities for Oil and Gas Exploration

in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020

Survey Type Number of Sampling Events Notes

Magnetotelluric Surveys 0-2 surveys Hundreds to thousands of line km per survey, or 

<9 OCS blocks; 1-6 months per survey

Gravity and Magnetic Surveys 

(remote sensing) 0-5 surveys

Hundreds to thousands of line km per survey; 

4-12 months per survey. Data typically acquired 

during seismic surveys

Aeromagnetic Surveys 

(remote sensing) 0-2 surveys Hundreds to thousands of line km per survey; 1-3 months per survey

Continental Offshore 

Stratigraphic Test Wells 0-3 wells Penetration >150 m (500 ft). Requires an Environmental Assessment

Shallow Test Drilling 0-5 wells Penetration <150 m (500 ft)

Bottom Sampling 50-300 samples Mainly surficial and near-surface sediments; 

penetration <30 m (98 ft) 
Tables-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-5 

Locations and Areas for Renewable Energy Site Characterization and Assessment Activities

Offshore the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas

State Areaa OCS Block 

Equivalents Description

Mid-Atlantic Planning Area

Delaware

122 nmi2

103,323 ac

41,813 ha

18

The Delaware area rests between the incoming and outgoing 

shipping routes for Delaware Bay, and is made up of 

11 whole OCS blocks and 16 partial blocks. The closest 

point to shore is approximately 10 nmi from Rehoboth 

Beach, DE. 

Maryland

94 nmi2

 

79,706 ac

32,256 ha

14

The Maryland area is defined as 9 whole OCS blocks and 

11 partial blocks. The western edge of the area is located 

approximately 10 nmi from the Ocean City, MD coast and 

the eastern edge is approximately 27 nmi from the Ocean 

City, MD coast.

Virginia

133 nmi2

 

112,799 ac

or 45,648 ha

24

The Virginia area consists of 19 whole OCS blocks and 

1 partial block. The western edge of the area is 

approximately 18 nmi from Virginia Beach, and the eastern 

edge is approximately 37 nmi from Virginia Beach. 

North Carolina

2,377 nmi2

2,014,459 ac

815,226 ha

75

In May 2011, North Carolina completed a screening exercise 

to yield a candidate area of 500 OCS lease blocks meeting 

their criteria for wind facility development. It was a 

screening exercise for potential environmental suitability 

and not an area proposed for wind development at this time. 

The screening resulted in an area of 354 lease blocks that 

will be assessed during the timeframe of this Programmatic 

EIS.

South Atlantic Planning Area

South Carolina

204 nmi2

172,800 ac

69,930 ha

30 Estimated 30 lease blocks.

Georgia

204 nmi2

172,800 ac

69,930 ha

30 Estimated 30 lease blocks.

Florida

204 nmi2

172,800 ac

69,930 ha

30 Estimated 30 lease blocks.

Atlantic Wind Connection Transmission Cable

New Jersey, 

Delaware, 

Maryland, 

Virginia

0.23 nmi2

198 ac

80 ha

-- Proposed transmission cable extending from southern New 

Jersey to Virginia. 

a Areal extents for Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia are based on Wind Energy Areas designated offshore these 

states. For the other states, the area is based on the total number of OCS block equivalents, multiplied by an area 

of 2,331 ha (5,760 ac) per lease block. Calculations for the Atlantic Wind Connection transmission cable are 

based on a length of 1,320 km (820 mi) and a right-of-way width of 61 m (200 ft).
Tables Tables-23

Table 3-6 

Projected Levels of G&G Activities for Renewable Energy Site Characterization and Assessment

in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020

Renewable 

Energy Area

OCS Block 

Equivalents

HRG Surveysa

(max km/hours)

Geotechnical Surveysb Bottomfounded 

Monitoring 

Buoysc

 

(min-max)

CPT Timing

(min-max)

Geologic 

Coring 

(min-max)

Grab Samples

(min-max)

Delaware 18 14,880/2,410 224–720 224–720 224–720 1–2 2012-2016 

Maryland 14 13,030/2,110 196–630 196–630 196–630 1–6 2012-2017 

Virginia 20 18,400/2,980 266–855 266–855 266–855 1–6 2012-2017 

North Carolina 354 327,850/53,150 4,956–15,930 4,956–15,930 4,956–15,930 1–20 2012-2017 

Mid-Atlantic 

Subtotal 406 374,160/60,650 5,642–18,135 5,642–18,135 5,642–18,135 4–34 2012-2017 

South Carolina 30 27,830/4,510 420–1,350 420–1,350 420–1,350 1–6 2012-2017 

Georgia 30 27,830/4,510 420–1,350 420–1,350 420–1,350 1–6 2013-2018 

Florida 30 27,830/4,510 420–1,350 420–1,350 420–1,350 1–6 2013-2018

South Atlantic 

Subtotal 90 83,490/13,530 1,260–4,050 1,260–4,050 1,260–4,050 3–18 2012-2018 

Atlantic 

Connection 

Transmission 

Cable

-- 6,600/820 12–24 12-24 12–24 -- 2012-2020 

TOTAL 496 464,250/75,000 6,914–22,209 6,914–22,209 6,914–22,209 7–52 2012-2020 

a HRG survey effort per block was assumed to be 925 km (500 nmi), requiring 150 hr to complete. Added 80 km 

(43 nmi) and 10 hr for surveying one transmission cable route for each state (except North Carolina, which has 

five separate planning areas and could have five independent transmissions cables). For the Atlantic Wind 

Connection transmission cable, the proposed route length of 1,320 km (820 mi) was multiplied by 5 km per 

kilometer of route. b Geotechnical survey effort was estimated to be 14-45 sampling locations per block based on the potential range of 

wind turbine densities per block (assuming one sampling location per turbine location). For the Atlantic Wind 

Connection transmission cable, assumed up to 12 substations with one or two sampling locations per substation. c Includes meteorological towers. 
Tables-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-7 

Projected Levels of High-Resolution Geophysical (HRG) Surveys for OCS Sand Borrow Projects

in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020

Year Project State

Cycle 

Volume 

(cubic yd)

Depth (m)

Distance 

Offshore 

(km) 

Prospecting HRGa

(line km)

Pre-Lease HRGa

(line km)

On-Lease HRGb

(line km) 

(lower 

bound)

(upper 

bound)

(lower

bound)

(upper 

bound)

(lower 

bound)

(upper 

bound)

Mid-Atlantic Planning Area

2012-2013 

Wallops Island VA 3,200,000 9-24 18-20 0 0 0 0 100 501

Fort Story/Dam Neck VA 1,000,000 9-20 5 0 0 0 0 31 156

Sandbridge VA 2,000,000 9-20 5 0 0 0 0 63 313

2014-2016 

Rehoboth/Dewey DE 360,000 9-20 5 26 642 47 235 11 56

Bethany/S. Bethany DE 480,000 9-20 5 34 856 63 313 15 75

Atlantic Coast of Maryland MD 800,000 12-16 12-16 0 0 104 522 25 125

Wallops Island VA 806,000 9-24 18-20 0 0 0 0 25 126

Sandbridge VA 2,000,000 9-20 5 0 0 0 0 63 313

West Onslow/North Topsail NC 866,000 13-15 6-9 0 0 0 0 27 135

Bogue Banks NC 500,000 13-15 3-5 0 0 65 327 16 78

2017-2020 

Rehoboth/Dewey DE 360,000 9-20 4.8 0 0 0 0 11 56

Bethany/S. Bethany DE 480,000 9-20 4.8 0 0 0 0 15 75

Atlantic Coast of Maryland MD 800,000 12-16 12-16 0 0 0 0 25 125

Surf City/North Topsail NC 2,640,000 12-15 5-8 0 0 0 0 83 413

Wrightsville Beach NC 800,000 N/A N/A 34 856 104 522 25 125

South Atlantic Planning Area

2012-2013 Patrick Air Force Base FL 310,000 3-14 3-8 0 0 0 0 10 49

2014-2016 

Grand Strand SC 2,300,000 7-13 4-7 0 0 0 0 72 360

Brevard County North Reach FL 516,000 3-14 3-8 0 0 0 0 16 81

Brevard County Mid-Reach FL 900,000 3-15 3-8 0 0 0 0 28 141

Brevard County South Reach FL 850,000 3-16 3-8 0 0 0 0 27 133

2017-2020 

Folly Beach SC 2,000,000 12-14 5 0 0 261 1,306 63 313

Duval County FL 1,500,000 14-19 10-11 0 0 0 0 47 235

St. Johns FL N/A N/A 3-6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Flagler FL N/A N/A 3-5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL

2012-2020 

Mid-Atlantic Planning Area -- 17,092,000 N/A N/A 94 2,354 383 1,919 535 2,672

South Atlantic Planning Area -- 8,376,000 N/A N/A 0 0 261 1,306 263 1,312

Unknown Projects in Mid- and 

South Atlantic Planning Areas -- 8,000,000 N/A N/A 34 856 209 1,045 125 626 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning 

Areas -- 33,468,000 N/A N/A 128 3,210 853 4,270 923 4,610 

N/A = Not available.

a Prospecting and prelease HRG involves the use of subbottom profiler, side-scan sonar, bathymetry (depth sounders), and magnetometer. b On-lease typically involves only a bathymetry (depth sounders).
Tables Tables-25

Table 3-8 

Projected Levels of Geotechnical Surveys for Outer Continental Shelf Sand Borrow Projects

in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020

Type of Geotechnical 

Sampling

Number of 

Deployments

Number of Samples 

Per Deployment Number of Samples

Vibracoring 6-24 15-25 90-600

Geologic coring 1-4 1-2 1-8

Grab sampling 2-8 30-40 60-320
Tables-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-9 

Scenario Elements for Proposed G&G Activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020

Activity Type Purpose 

Number of 

Events or 

Level of Effort

Primary Platform 

and Size Scale of Activity Penetration Depth 

Approximate 

Duration/ 

Event

Shore 

Basea Service 

Vessel

High-Energy 

Sound Source(s) 

Bottom 

Area 

Disturbed

Oil and Gas Exploration

2D Seismic

Survey

Identify geologic 

structure 1-10 1 ship,~100 m 617,775 line km kms to 10sof kms 2-12 months 0 to 1 0 to 1 Airgun array None 

3D Seismic 

Survey

Identify geologic 

structure 5-10 1-2 ships,~100 m 

2,500 OCS 

blocks 

kms to 10s

of kms 4-12 months 0 to 1 0 to 1 Dual airgun array None 

3D WAZ and 3D 

FAZ Coil 

Better define 

complex geologic 

structure

1-2 4 ships, 

~100 m 900 line km kms to 10sof kms 1 year 0 to 2 1 to 2 4 x arrays None 

Vertical Seismic 

Profiling

Calibrate seismic 

with known 

geology

3-8 1 ship, 

~30 m 1,280 line km

100s to 

1,000s 

of m

3-4 days 1 None Single airgun

High-Resolution 

Seismic Survey

Shallow hazards 

assessment and 

archaeological 

determinations 

10-20 1 ship, 

~30 m 175,465 line km 10s to 100sof m

3 days – 

1 week 1 None 

• 1-2 airguns

• Boomer, sparker, or 

chirp subbottom 

profiler 

• Side-scan sonar

• Multi-beam 

depth sounder

None 

3D Controlled 

Source 

Electromagnetic 

Optimize 

reservoir 

production 

0-2 1 ship, 

~20-100 m 119,760 km 3-5 km 1-6 months 0 to 1 0 to 1 None 

Anchors 

with bottom 

receivers, 

<1 OCS 

block

Magnetotelluric 

Survey 

Optimize 

reservoir 

production 

0-2 1 ship, 

~20-100 m

100s to 1,000s 

of line kms; 

or ≤9 OCS 

blocks 

3-5 km 1-6 months 0 to 1 0 to 1 None 

Anchors 

with bottom 

receivers, 

<1 OCS 

block

Gravity and 

Magnetic 

Passive 

measurement, 

gravity and 

magnetic fields

0-5 Acquisition with 

seismic typical

100s to 1,000s

of line kms

kms to 10s

of kms 4-12 months 0 to 1 0 to 1 None None 

Aeromagnetic 

Passive 

measurement, 

magnetic fields

1-2 1 aircraft 100s to 1,000s 

of line kms

kms to 10s

of kms 1-3 months 0 to 1 0 None None 

COST Well 

Test drilling 

outside of lease 

program

0-3 

well

Platform or 

drillship, ~100 m

<1/16 OCS 

block ≥150 m 5-30 days 0 to 1 0 to 2 None ≤2 ha 

per well 

Shallow Test 

Drilling

Test drilling 

outside of lease 

program

0-5 

wells

Platform or 

drillship, ~100 m

<1/16 OCS 

block <150 m 5-30 days 0 to 1 0 to 2 None ≤2 ha per well 

Bottom Sampling Extract sediment 

core 50-300 1 barge or ship,~20 m 

<1/16 OCS 

block <300 m <3 days 0 to 1 None None ~10 m2

, 

per sample
Tables Tables-27

Table 3-9. Scenario Elements for Proposed G&G Activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020 (continued). 

Renewable Energy

High-Resolution 

Geophysical Survey

Shallow hazards 

assessment and 

archaeological 

determinations 

1 or more 

surveys per 

state

1 ship, ~20-30 m

Each survey 

≥1/16 OCS blockb

plus cable route to 

shore; Total 

211,585 line km 

(about 220 OCS

blocks)

Surficial to 

10s to 100s 

of meters

3 days – 

1 weeks 1 None 

• Boomer, sparker,

or chirp 

subbottom 

profiler 

• Side-scan sonar

• Multi-beam 

depth sounder

None 

Cone Penetrometer 

Test

Measure sediment 

engineering 

properties 

2,712-8,374 1 barge or ship,

~60 m 

≥1/16 OCS 

block or along 

cable route to 

shore

<10 m <3 days 1 None None ~10 m2 per 

sample

Geologic Coring Extract sediment 

core 2,712-8,374 1 barge or ship,~60 m 

≥1/16 OCS 

block or along 

cable route to 

shore

<300 m <3 days 1 None None ~10 m2 per 

sample

Grab Sampling Collect sediment 

and benthic fauna 2,712-8,374 1 barge or ship,~60 m 

≥1/16 OCS 

block or along 

cable route to 

shore

<1 m <3 days 1 None None ~10 m2 per 

sample

Bottom-Founded 

Monitoring Buoy

Measure ocean 

and 

meteorological 

conditions

7-38 1 barge or ship,

~60 m 

≥1/16 OCS 

block Surficial <3 days 1 None None ~1 m2

 

per buoy

2D or 3D Deep 

Penetration Seismic

Evaluate formation 

for carbon 

sequestration

0 to 1 survey 1 ship,

~100 m <1 OCS block km to 10s of km 1 - 30 days 1 0-2 Airgun arrayor dual array None 

Marine Minerals

High-Resolution 

Geophysical Survey

Shallow hazards 

assessment and 

archaeological 

determinations 

10-40 surveys,

9-21 wks 1 ship, ~30 m 

~1,904-12,090 

line kms; or 

1-4.5 OCS 

blocks 

10s to 100s

of m

3 days - 1 

weeks 1 None 

• Boomer, sparker,

or chirp 

subbottom 

profiler 

• Side-scan sonar

• Multi-beam 

depth sounder

None 

Vibracoring Extract sediment 

core

6-24 events

(90-600 cores)

1 barge or ship,

~20 m

≥1/16 OCS 

block 10-15 m 3-5 days 1 None None ~10 m2per sample

Geologic 

Coring

Extract sediment 

core

1-4 events

(1-8 cores)

1 barge or ship,

~20 m

≥1/16 OCS 

block <300 m <3 days 1 None None ~10 m2per sample

Grab Sampling Collect sediment 

and benthic fauna

2-8 events

(60-320 

grabs)

1 barge or ship, 

~20 m 

≥1/16 OCS 

block <1 m <3 days 1 None None ~10 m2

 

per sample

Abbreviations: COST = Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test; FAZ = Full Azimuth Survey; N/A = Not applicable; OCS = Outer Continental Shelf; WAZ = Wide Azimuth Survey. a Shore base is the point of deployment to return berth. b 1/16 of an OCS block (256 ac) is the smallest area considered for renewable energy leasing. All full-build out renewable energy projects in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 

Planning Areas are wind park facilities that would be considerably larger than 1/16 of an OCS block. The average OCS wind park would be ≤10 OCS blocks in size.
Tables-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-10

Impact-Producing Factors

Impact-Producing Factor Program Area Survey Type(s) Brief Description OG RE MM

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns X X -- Deep penetration seismic 

surveys and HRG surveys

Underwater noise from 

compressed air release

Electromechanical Sources X X X HRG surveys 

Underwater noise from 

subbottom profilers (boomer, 

sparker, or chirp), side-scan 

sonar, and multi-beam depth 

sounders

Vessel and Equipment Noise X X X 

All vessel surveys; drilling 

of COST wells and shallow 

test wells

Underwater noise from vessel 

engines and equipment, and 

from drilling activities

Vessel Traffic X X X All vessel surveys

Vessel movements including 

survey lines and round trips to 

onshore base

Aircraft Traffic and Noise X -- -- Aeromagnetic surveys Aircraft traffic, and noise from 

engines and propellers

Vessel Exclusion Zones X -- --

Deep penetration seismic 

surveys with towed 

streamers

Temporary exclusion zone 

around streamer arrays to 

avoid entanglement

Vessel Waste Discharges X X X All vessel surveys Bilge, ballast, sanitary and 

domestic waste discharges

Trash and Debris X X X All vessel surveys Accidental release of trash or 

debris into the ocean

Seafloor Disturbance

Bottom Sampling X X X Geotechnical sampling and 

testing

Collection of vibracore, 

geologic core, and grab 

samples; CPT testing

Cables, Nodes, Anchors X -- --

Certain deep penetration 

seismic surveys and CSEM 

and MT surveys

Temporary placement of 

cables, nodes, sensors, or 

anchors on or in seafloor

COST Wells and Shallow 

Test Drilling X -- -- Drilling of COST wells and shallow test wells

Seafloor disturbance due to 

placement of well template, 

jetting of well, and anchoring 

of drilling rig

Meteorological Buoys -- X -- Site characterization for 

renewable energy areas

Temporary anchoring of 

meteorological buoys

Drilling Discharges X -- -- Drilling of COST wells and 

shallow test wells

Release of drilling fluids and 

cuttings at seafloor and from 

drilling rig

Onshore Support Activities X X X All vessel surveys

Routine use of existing 

shorebase facilities, including 

purchase of fuel, supplies and 

services

Accidental Fuel Spills X X X All vessel surveys

Potential for release of diesel 

or fuel oil from a vessel 

accident

Abbreviations: CSEM = controlled source electromagnetic; COST = Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test; 

CPT = cone penetrometer test; HRG = high-resolution geophysical; MM = marine minerals; 

MT = magnetotelluric; OG = oil and gas exploration; RE = renewable energy.
Tables Tables-29

Table 3-11

Characteristics of Active Acoustic Sound Sources Included in the Proposed Action

Source Usage Operating Frequencies

Broadband 

Source Level 

(dB re 1 μPa at 1 m)

Large Airgun Array 

(5,400 in2

) 

Deep penetration seismic 

surveys, oil and gas exploration 

(2D, 3D, WAZ, VSP, 4D, etc.)

10-2,000 Hz

(most energy 

at <200 Hz)

230.7

Small Airgun Array 

(90 in2

) HRG surveys

10-2,000 Hz

(most energy 

at <200 Hz)

210.3

Side-scan Sonar HRG surveys, all program areas 100 kHz,

400 kHz 226

Boomer or Sparker 

Subbottom Profiler HRG surveys, all program areas 200-16,000 Hz 212

Chirp Subbottom Profiler HRG surveys, all program areas

3.5 kHz, 

12 kHz,

200 kHz

222

Multi-beam Depth 

Sounder HRG surveys, all program areas 240 kHz 213

Source: Appendix D. 
Tables-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-12

Summary of Annual Navy Exercises within and Adjacent to the AOI 

(adapted from U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2008, 2012)

Scenario Events per Year Characteristics VACAPES CHPT JAX/CHASN

Independent ULT

Surface Ship ASW 69 91 292 One or two surface ships conduct ASW localization and tracking training. Occurs in both deep and 

shallow water areas throughout the eastern and southeastern waters of the U.S.

Surface Ship Object 

Detection/Navigation

al Sonar

68 -- 40 

One ship conducts object detection and navigational training while transiting in and out of port. 

Conducted primarily in the shallow water shipping lanes off the coasts of Norfolk (VA) and 

Mayport (FL).

Helicopter ASW 25 25 115 One helicopter conducts ASW training in shallow and deep waters while embarked on a surface 

ship. Conducted by helicopters deployed from shore-based Jacksonville (FL) units.

Submarine ASW 10 14 45 

One submarine conducting underwater ASW training using the active sonar and torpedoes. 

Training conducted in deep waters within and seaward of existing East Coast OPAREAs, 

occasionally in the GOMEX OPAREA.

Submarine Object 

Detection/Navigation

al Sonar

78 -- 57 

One submarine conducting object detection and navigational training while transiting in and out of 

port using sonar; the submarine operates sonar to detect obstructions during transit. Occurs 

primarily in established submarine transit lanes outside of Groton (CN), Norfolk (VA), and Kings 

Bay (GA).

MPA ASW (tonal 

sonobuoy) 79 111 356 

One MPA conducts ASW localization and tracking training using tonal, passive, explosive source, 

or receiver sonobuoys. Occurs within and seaward of existing East Coast OPAREAs, occasionally 

within the GOMEX OPAREA.

MPA ASW 

(explosive source 

sonobuoy)

34 34 34 See MPA ASW (tonal sonobuoy), above.

Surface Ship MTW -- -- -- Exclusive to GOMEX OPAREA; no surface ship MTW exercises projected for the Atlantic 

OPAREAs.

Coordinated ULT

SEASWITI -- -- 4 

Up to two submarines and three ships. Ships and their embarked helicopters conduct ASW 

localization training using sonar; submarines periodically operate sonar. Tonal sonobuoys and 

ADCs are also used. Scenarios continue over a 5-7 day period and occur four times per year. 

Occurs in deep water OPAREAs off the coast of Jacksonville (FL).

IAC 0.2 1.4 2.4 

Coordinated training scenario that typically involves five ships and 2-3 embarked helicopters, and 

one submarine using sonar. The scenario consists of two 12-hr events occurring five times per year. 

Tonal sonobuoys are used. Multiple acoustic sources may be active at one time. Occurs within and 

seaward of the VACAPES, CHPT, and JAX/CHASN OPAREAs or within and adjacent to the 

GOMEX OPAREA. During these exercises, some activities may occur in more than one OPAREA.

Group Sail 3 4 13 

One submarine and two or three ships and their embarked helicopters conduct ASW localization 

training using sonar. Tonal sonobuoys and ADCs may also be used; numbers of passive sonobuoys 

deployed can vary. Up to two torpedoes could be fired per exercise. Scenarios last from 2-3 days 

and occur 20 times per year. These events occur within and seaward of VACAPES, CHPT, and 

JAX/CHASN OPAREAs.
Tables Tables-31

Table 3-12. Summary of Annual Navy Exercises within and Adjacent to the AOI (adapted from U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2008, 2012). 

Scenario Events per Year Characteristics VACAPES CHPT JAX/CHASN

SCC Operations -- -- 1.6 

Involves two submarines conducting ASW training using sonar. Up to 36 torpedoes could be fired 

during the duration of an exercise. Occurs two times per year and lasts from 3-5 days in deep water 

of the JAX/CHASN and Northeast OPAREAs. A support vessel may be required.

RONEX and 

GOMEX Exercises -- -- -- Not conducted in the Atlantic OPAREAs.

Strike Group Training

ESG COMPUTUEX 

and CSG 

COMPUTUEX*

0.2 1.4 2.4 

An ESG COMPTUEX consists of a Navy ESG and Marine Corps units conducting integrated 

maritime and amphibious operations. The ESG and CSG consist of multiple ships, aircraft and 

submarines operating as an integrated force. An ESG or CSG consists of up to six surface ships, 

one to five aircraft, and one submarine, approximately half of which are not equipped with active 

sonar sensors. Sonars and sonobuoys are employed. Each COMPTUEX lasts 21 days and occurs 

five times per year. Exercises are conducted within and seaward of the VACAPES, CHPT, and 

JAX/CHASN OPAREAs, or within and adjacent to the GOMEX OPAREA. During these exercises, 

some activities may occur in more than one OPAREA.

JTFEX 0.2 0.6 1.2 

Typically, six ships and three submarines participate in a JTFEX. Sonars, sonobuoys, and ADCs are 

employed. Each scenario lasts 10 days and occurs two times per year. JTFEX activities occur in 

shallow and deep water, including portions within and seaward of the VACAPES, CHPT, and 

JAX/CHASN OPAREAs.

Maintenance

Surface Ship Sonar 

Maintenance 61 82 263 

Scenario consists of surface ships performing periodic maintenance to sonar systems while in port 

or at sea. Maintenance takes up to 4 hr. Surface ships operate their active sonar systems for 

maintenance while in shallow water near their homeport, located in either Norfolk (VA) or Mayport 

(FL).

Submarine Sonar 

Maintenance 10 14 45 

Scenario consists of submarines performing periodic maintenance to sonar systems while in port or 

at sea. Maintenance takes from 45 min to 1 hr. Submarines conduct maintenance to their sonar 

systems in shallow water near their homeport of Groton (CN), Norfolk (VA), or Kings Bay (GA).

* COMPTUEX distribution reflects the typical distribution of COMPTUEXs across OPAREA boundaries.

Abbreviations: ADC = acoustic device countermeasure; ASW = antisubmarine warfare; CHPT = Cherry Point; COMPTUEX = Composite Training Unit Exercise; 

CSG = Carrier Strike Group; ESG = Expeditionary Strike Group; GOMEX = Gulf of Mexico; IAC = Integrated ASW Course; JAX/CHASN = Jacksonville/Charleston; 

JTFEX = Joint Task Force Exercise; MIW = Mine Warfare; MPA = Maritime Patrol Aircraft; OPAREA = Operating Area; RONEX = Squadron Exercise; 

SCC = Submarine Command Course; SEASWITI = Southeastern Antisubmarine Warfare Integrated Training Initiative; TORPEX = Torpedo Exercise; ULT = Unit Level 

Training; VACAPES = Virginia Capes.
Tables-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 3-13

Summary of Vessel Activity in the Area or Interest, by Activity Type

Vessel Activity Type Total (2012-2020 Period) Average Per Year

G&G Activity

Seismic Airgun – port visits* 125 14

Renewal Energy – HRG 3,106-9,969 345-1,108

Renewable Energy – geotechnical 4,255 473

Marine Minerals – HRG 180 20

Marine Minerals – geotechnical 93-615 10-68

Total G&G-related 7,759-15,144 862-1,683

Shipping and Maritime Transport >486,000 >54,000

U.S. Navy Exercises, Training, Testing

Independent Unit Level Training -- 764-1,216

Coordinated Unit Level Training -- 118-145

Strike Group Training -- 46

Maintenance -- 475

Total Navy-related** -- 1,403-1,882

 * Seismic airgun vessel port visits assumed to be approximately equivalent to seismic airgun vessel surveys. 

** Training activities, particularly coordinated unit level training, involve multiple vessels and/or submarines; 

estimates derived from Table 3-12. 
Tables Tables-33

Table 4-1 

Impact-Producing Factors for G&G Activities

Survey Type OG RE MM

Active Acoustic Sound SourcesVessel and Equipment NoiseVessel TrafficAircraft Traffic and NoiseExclusion ZonesVessel WastesTrash and DebrisSeafloor DisturbanceDrilling DischargesOnshore SupportAccidental Fuel Spills

Deep-Penetration Seismic Surveys

2D Seismic (Streamers) X -- -- X X X -- X X X -- -- X X 

2D Seismic (Ocean Bottom Receivers) X -- -- X X X -- X X X X -- X X 

3D Seismic (Streamers)X -- --XXX --XXX -- --XX

3D (Ocean Bottom Receivers)X -- --XXX --XXXX --XX

3D Wide Azimuth and Full Azimuth (Streamers)X -- --XXX --XXX -- --XX

4D (Time-Lapse) (Ocean Bottom Cables/Nodes)X -- --XXX --XXXX --XX

Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP)X -- --XXX --XXX -- --XX

Vertical CableX -- --XXX --XXXX --XX

High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys

HRG Surveys • Higher frequency, smaller size airgun • Boomer or sparker • Multibeam depth sounder • Side-scan sonar • Chirp 

X X -- X X X -- -- X X -- -- X X 

Non-airgun HRG Surveys Boomer or sparker

• Multibeam depth sounder • Side-scan sonar • Chirp 

-- X X X X X -- -- X X -- -- X X 

Electromagnetic Surveys

Controlled Source ElectromagneticX -- -- --XX -- --XXX -- XX

MagnetotelluricX -- -- --XX -- --XXX --XX

Deep Stratigraphic and Shallow Test Drilling

Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test Wells X -- -- -- X X -- -- X X X X X X 
Tables-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-1. Impact-Producing Factors for G&G Activities (continued).

Survey Type OG RE MM

Active Acoustic Sound SourcesVessel and Equipment NoiseVessel TrafficAircraft Traffic and NoiseExclusion ZonesVessel WastesTrash and DebrisSeafloor DisturbanceDrilling DischargesOnshore SupportAccidental Fuel Spills

Shallow Test Drilling X -- -- -- X X -- -- X X X X X X 

Bottom Sampling

Cone Penetrometer TestsXXX --XX -- --XXX --XX

VibracoringXXX --XX -- --XXX --XX

Gravity CoringXXX --XX -- --XXX --XX

Grab SamplingXXX --XX -- --XXX --XX

Remote Sensing

Gravity SurveysX -- -- --XX -- --XX -- --XX

Gravity Gradiometry X -- -- -- X X -- -- X X -- -- X X 

Marine Magnetic Surveys X -- -- -- X X -- -- X X -- -- X X 

Aeromagnetic SurveysX -- -- -- -- --X -- -- -- -- --X --

Abbreviations: OG = oil and gas; RE = renewable energy; MM = marine minerals.
Tables Tables-35

Table 4-2 

Preliminary Screening of Potential Impacts (Leopold Matrix)

Resource

Impact-Producing Factor

Active Acoustic Sound SourcesVessel and Equipment NoiseVessel TrafficAircraft Traffic and NoiseExclusion ZonesVessel WastesTrash and DebrisSeafloor DisturbanceDrilling DischargesOnshore SupportAccidental Fuel Spills

Benthic Communities

• Soft Bottom X -- -- -- -- -- X X X -- X

• Hard/Live Bottom/Coral/

Chemosynthetic X -- -- -- -- -- X X X -- X 

Marine Mammals X X X X -- -- X -- -- -- X

Sea Turtles X X X X -- -- X -- -- -- X

Marine and Coastal Birds X X X X -- -- X -- -- -- X

Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat X X -- -- -- -- X X -- X

Threatened and Endangered Fishes X X -- -- -- -- X X X -- X 

Commercial Fisheries X -- X -- X -- -- X -- -- X 

Recreational Fisheries X -- X -- X -- -- -- -- -- X

Recreational Resources -- -- -- -- X -- X -- -- -- X

Archaeological Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X -- X

Marine Protected Areas X -- -- -- -- -- X X X -- X

Other Marine Uses -- -- X X X -- -- X -- -- X

Human Resources and Land Use -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X

Geology/Sediments -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Air and Water Quality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

X = potential impact for analysis. - = no impact expected.
Tables-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-3 

Sources for G&G Impact-Producing Factors

Impact Producing Factors Program Area Sources Included in proposed action

OG RE MM

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns X X -- Seismic airgun surveys

Electromechanical sources X X X Non-airgun HRG surveys 

Vessel and Equipment Noise X X X All shipboard surveys

Vessel Traffic X X X All shipboard surveys

Aircraft Traffic and Noise X -- -- Aeromagnetic surveys

Exclusion Zones X -- -- Seismic airgun surveys using towed streamers

Trash and Debris X X X All shipboard surveys

Seafloor Disturbance X X X Bottom-founded activities – coring, equipment emplacement

Drilling Discharges X -- -- Drilling of COST wells and shallow test wells

Onshore Support X X X All surveys

Accidental Fuel Spills X X X All shipboard surveys

Abbreviations: OG = oil and gas; RE = renewable energy; MM = marine minerals.
Tables Tables-37

Table 4-4 

Marine Mammals Potentially Occurring in the Area of Interest

Common Name Species Stock

ESA/ 

Stock 

Status1

Occurrence Best Pop. 

Estimate2

Critical 

Habitat in 

Area of 

Interest

Functional 

Hearing Group3

L M H P 

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

acutorostrata

Canadian East Coast Rare 8,987 -- L 

Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Nova Scotia E/S Rare 386 -- L

Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera brydei N/A Rare N/A -- L

Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Western North Atlantic E/S Rare unknown -- L

Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus Western North Atlantic E/S Regular 3,985 -- L

North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Western Atlantic E/S Regular 361 Yes L

Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Gulf of Maine E/S Regular 847 -- L

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked Common 

Dolphin Delphinus delphis Western North Atlantic Regular 120,743 --

Pygmy Killer Whale Feresa attenuata Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Short-Finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Western North Atlantic Regular 24,674 -- M

Long-Finned Pilot Whale Globicephala melas Western North Atlantic Regular 12,619 -- M

Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus Western North Atlantic Regular 20,479 -- M

Northern Bottlenose Whale Hyperoodon ampullatus Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps Western North Atlantic Regular 395 -- H

Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia sima Western North Atlantic Regular 395 -- H

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin Lagenodelphis acutus Western North Atlantic Rare 63,368 -- M

Fraser's Dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon bidens Western North Atlantic Regular 3,513 -- M

Blainville’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon densirostris Western North Atlantic Regular 3,513 -- M

Gervais’ Beaked Whale Mesoplodon europaeus Western North Atlantic Regular 3,513 -- M

True’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon mirus Western North Atlantic Regular 3,513 -- M

Killer Whale Orcinus orca Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Melon-Headed Whale Peponocephala electra Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Rare 89,054 -- H

Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus North Atlantic E/S Regular 4,804 -- M

False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens N/A N/A unknown -- M
Tables-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-4. Marine Mammals Potentially Occurring in the Area of Interest (continued). 

Common Name Species Stock

ESA/ 

Stock 

Status1

Occurrence Best Pop. 

Estimate2

Critical 

Habitat in 

Area of 

Interest

Functional 

Hearing Group3

L M H P 

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stenella attenuata Western North Atlantic Regular 4,439 -- M

Clymene Dolphin Stenella clymene Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba North Atlantic Regular 94,462 -- M

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Stenella frontalis Western North Atlantic Regular 50,978 -- M

Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Rough-Toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- M

Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus

Western North Atlantic 

Offshore Regular 81,588 -- M 

Coastal and estuarine stocks 

(12 stocks; see text) S Regular varies -- M 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Ziphius cavirostris Western North Atlantic Regular 3,513 -- M

ORDER SIRENIA 

West Indian Manatee 

(Florida subspecies) Trichechus manatus latirostris Florida E/S Rare 3,802

Nearby 

(FL inland 

waters)

P4

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia

Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- P

Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- P

Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- P

Harp Seal Phoca groenlandica Western North Atlantic Rare unknown -- P

N/A = Not available. 1 ESA = Endangered Species Act; E = endangered; S = strategic stock. 2 Best population estimate “NBest” from Table 1 of the Waring et al. (2010) stock assessment report. 3 Functional marine mammal hearing groups and specific auditory ranges (Adapted from Southall et al., 2007). L = Low-Frequency Cetacean (7 Hz22 kHz); M = Mid-Frequency Cetacean (150 Hz-160 kHz); H = High-Frequency Cetacean (200 Hz-180) kHz; P = Pinniped In Water (75 Hz-75 kHz). 4 Manatee hearing is not addressed by Southall et al. (2007). Based on review of marine mammal hearing capabilities for this Programmatic EIS

(Appendix H), manatee hearing is generally similar to that of phocid pinnipeds except at the lowest frequencies.

Source: Waring et al. (2010).
Tables Tables-39

Table 4-5 

Designated U.S. and Canadian Seasonal Management Areas for the North Atlantic Right Whale

Regional Area Individual Areas Concerns Period of Activity

Northeast U.S. Seasonal 

Management Areas

Cape Cod Bay Feeding Area January 1–May 15

Off Race Point Feeding Area March 1–April 30

Great South Channel Feeding Area April 1–July 31

Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal 

Management Areas

Block Island Sound Migratory Route and 

Calving Grounds

November 1–April 30

Ports of New York/

New Jersey

Entrance to Delaware Bay

Entrance to Chesapeake Bay

Ports of Morehead City and 

Beaufort, NC

Wilmington, NC to 

Brunswick, GA

Southeast U.S. Seasonal 

Management Area Central GA to northeast FL Calving and Nursery Grounds November 15–April 15

Grand Manan Basin 

Critical Habitat Area

New Brunswick and 

Nova Scotia, Canada Feeding Area

Roseway Basin Critical 

Habitat Area South of Nova Scotia, Canada Feeding Area June–December

Table 4-6 

Functional Marine Mammal Hearing Groups, Associated Auditory Bandwidths,

and Marine Mammal Species Present in the Area of Interest

Functional Hearing Group Estimated Auditory 

Bandwidth

Marine Mammal Species

Present in the AOI

Low-frequency cetaceans 7 Hz-22 kHz North Atlantic right whale; blue whale; fin whale; humpback 

whale; sei whale; Bryde’s whale; common minke whale

Mid-frequency cetaceans 150 Hz-160 kHz

Sperm whale; beaked whales; Stenella dolphins; bottlenose 

dolphin; killer whale; pygmy killer whale; false killer whale; 

Risso’s dolphin; short-finned and long-finned pilot whales; 

common dolphin; melon-headed whale; Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin; Fraser’s dolphin; rough-toothed dolphin

High-frequency cetaceans 200 Hz-180 kHz Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales; harbor porpoise

Pinnipeds in water 75 Hz-75 kHz Harbor, gray, hooded, and harp seals

Pinnipeds in air 75 Hz-30 kHz Harbor, gray, hooded, and harp seals

Abbreviations: AOI = Area of Interest; Hz = hertz; kHz = kilohertz.

Source: Southall et al., 2007.
Tables-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-7 

Existing and Proposed Injury and Behavior Exposure Criteria

for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds Exposed to Pulsed Sounds

Group

Level A (Injury) Level B (Behavior)

NMFS Criteria

(Federal Register, 

2000b): 

Sound Pressure Level

(dB re 1 μPa rms)

Southall et al. (2007) 

Criteria:

Sound Exposure Level 

(dB re 1 μPa2 s)

Southall et al. (2007) 

Criteria:

Single Pulse, Sound 

Pressure Level 

(dB re 1 μPa rms)

NMFS Criteria

(Federal Register, 

2000b): 

Sound Pressure Level

(dB re 1 μPa rms)

Cetaceans 180 198 230 160

Pinnipeds 190 186 218 160

Note: Current regulatory thresholds are shaded.
Tables Tables-41

Table 4-8 

Summary of Radial Distances to the 160-dB and 180-dB (rms) Isopleths

from a Single Pulse for Various Equipment

Equipment 

Number of 

Scenarios 

Modeled 

Pulse 

Duration 

Adjustment 

(dB) for 

Short Pulse 

Durationa

180-dB Radius (m) 160-dB Radius (m)

Calculated 

using Nominal 

Source Levelb

Recalculated 

for Short Pulse 

Durationa

Calculated 

using Nominal 

Source Levelb

Recalculated 

for Short Pulse 

Durationa

Large Airgun 

Array (5,400 in3), 

2D and 3D 

Surveys 

35 >100 ms -- 799-2,109 -- 5,184-15,305 -- 

Small Airgun 

Array (90 in3), 

HRG Surveys 

35 >100 ms -- 76-186 -- 1,294-3,056 -- 

Boomer 14 180 μs -27.3 38-45 <5 1,054-2,138 16 

Side-Scan Sonar 14 20 ms -7.0 128-192 65-96 500-655 337-450 

Chirp Subbottom 

Profiler 14 64 ms -1.9 32-42 26-35 359-971 240-689 

Multibeam Depth 

Sounder 7 225 μs -26.5 27 <5 147-156 12 

a For sources with a pulse duration <100 ms, the nominal source level was adjusted by the amount indicated to produce a 

second, “recalculated” radius for both the 180-dB and 160-dB criteria. See Appendix D. b The value is the radius (Rmax) for the maximum received sound pressure level. See Appendix D. 

Source: Appendix D. 
Tables-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-9 

Annual Level A Take Estimates from Seismic Airgun Sources Using Southall et al. (2007) Criteria for Marine Mammal Species

during the Project Period (2012-2020)

Marine Mammal Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common Minke Whale 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.161 0.017 0.067 0.047 0.022 0.024

Sei Whale 0.000 0.000 0.208 0.402 0.047 0.170 0.121 0.061 0.068

Bryde's Whale 0.000 0.000 0.632 1.237 0.144 0.714 0.535 0.364 0.173

Blue Whale 0.000 0.000 0.831 1.622 0.180 0.908 0.672 0.443 0.215

Fin Whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

North Atlantic Right Whale 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.071 0.008 0.045 0.034 0.024 0.009

Humpback Whale 0.000 0.000 3.046 5.931 0.674 3.102 2.279 1.415 0.848

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked Common Dolphin 0.000 0.000 116.584 225.454 18.848 96.111 64.095 28.714 23.101

Pygmy Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 0.161 0.312 0.061 0.158 0.129 0.082 0.091

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 0.000 0.000 11.616 22.498 74.416 55.161 93.694 123.153 153.571

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 0.000 0.000 59.577 117.528 13.886 79.691 61.042 45.685 14.791

Risso’s Dolphin 0.000 0.000 370.550 731.439 87.140 501.580 385.115 290.103 92.466

Northern Bottlenose Whale 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.007 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001

Pygmy Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.041 0.080 0.083 0.138

Dwarf Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 2.819 5.564 1.326 4.200 3.676 3.169 2.010

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 0.000 0.000 1.347 2.659 0.522 1.965 1.659 1.415 0.768

Fraser's Dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.208 0.402 0.032 0.161 0.105 0.041 0.040

Sowerby's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.009 0.012

Blainville's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 1.459 2.816 0.225 1.126 0.731 0.282 0.282

Gervais' Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 1.459 2.816 0.225 1.126 0.731 0.282 0.282

True's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 1.459 2.816 0.225 1.126 0.731 0.282 0.282

Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.100 0.033 0.054 0.052 0.040 0.056

Melon-Headed Whale 0.000 0.000 0.161 0.312 0.061 0.158 0.129 0.082 0.091

Harbor Porpoise 0.000 0.000 2.064 3.995 0.655 1.913 1.509 0.963 1.012

Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.184 0.015 0.076 0.050 0.021 0.019

False Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 0.155 0.300 0.126 0.194 0.204 0.186 0.224

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 0.000 0.000 135.938 263.432 35.378 127.155 96.513 61.914 53.839

Clymene Dolphin 0.000 0.000 64.945 125.855 16.902 60.749 46.109 29.580 25.722

Striped Dolphin 0.000 0.000 527.416 1020.455 157.930 486.916 383.424 258.754 256.777

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 0.000 0.000 771.308 1496.301 201.604 741.310 564.738 369.590 303.440

Spinner Dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.611 1.184 0.159 0.571 0.434 0.278 0.242

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.023 0.043 0.061 0.075

Bottlenose Dolphin 0.000 0.000 14.775 28.936 21.683 28.545 34.819 39.072 42.117

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 10.213 19.709 1.577 7.883 5.119 1.972 1.972

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian Manatee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia

Hooded Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gray Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Harbor Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tables Tables-43

Table 4-10

Annual Level A Takes Estimates from Seismic Airgun Sources Using 180-dB Criteria for Marine Mammal Species

during the Project Period (2012-2020)

Marine Mammal Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common Minke Whale 0.000 0.000 0.342 0.666 0.101 0.364 0.285 0.196 0.144

Sei Whale 0.000 0.000 1.965 3.855 0.648 2.473 2.009 1.567 0.925

Bryde's Whale 0.000 0.000 1.948 3.820 0.642 2.445 1.986 1.548 0.918

Blue Whale 0.000 0.000 2.182 4.274 0.700 2.653 2.139 1.632 1.000

Fin Whale 0.000 0.000 4.400 8.638 1.507 5.679 4.657 3.705 2.180

North Atlantic Right Whale 0.000 0.000 1.162 2.290 0.611 1.757 1.595 1.464 0.858

Humpback Whale 0.000 0.000 5.897 11.542 1.853 7.071 5.671 4.275 2.632

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked Common Dolphin 0.000 0.000 3121.383 6146.553 1114.258 4282.933 3551.165 2919.887 1611.226

Pygmy Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 2.253 4.410 0.705 2.708 2.170 1.635 0.997

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 0.000 0.000 2354.300 4631.133 840.256 3170.157 2627.151 2145.343 1224.552

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 0.000 0.000 297.400 582.360 96.845 362.017 292.887 224.439 139.821

Risso’s Dolphin 0.000 0.000 1619.672 3180.466 551.169 2095.819 1717.190 1367.649 796.896

Northern Bottlenose Whale 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.250 0.043 0.174 0.143 0.116 0.061

Pygmy Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 2.371 4.592 0.559 2.140 1.562 0.872 0.770

Dwarf Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 14.844 29.005 4.264 16.952 13.300 9.592 5.939

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 0.000 0.000 4.668 9.152 1.467 5.795 4.657 3.573 2.063

Fraser's Dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.242 0.468 0.055 0.210 0.151 0.079 0.076

Sowerby's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 0.203 0.397 0.060 0.233 0.184 0.134 0.085

Blainville's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 39.568 77.313 11.835 45.464 35.978 26.232 16.739

Gervais' Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 39.568 77.313 11.835 45.464 35.978 26.232 16.739

True's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 39.568 77.313 11.835 45.464 35.978 26.232 16.739

Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 1.965 3.843 0.602 2.309 1.839 1.363 0.852

Melon-Headed Whale 0.000 0.000 2.523 4.942 0.818 3.098 2.505 1.924 1.168

Harbor Porpoise 0.000 0.000 7.054 13.798 2.245 8.376 6.733 5.072 3.235

Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 158.828 309.723 44.502 173.124 134.518 93.561 62.258

False Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 2.801 5.491 0.930 3.501 2.848 2.218 1.334

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 0.000 0.000 446.741 876.082 145.967 559.932 454.020 352.985 208.113

Clymene Dolphin 0.000 0.000 207.184 406.191 67.382 258.155 209.054 161.919 96.038

Striped Dolphin 0.000 0.000 2038.848 3993.224 650.891 2483.607 2000.683 1526.327 928.896

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 0.000 0.000 2978.964 5847.582 988.880 3813.267 3105.692 2446.233 1406.107

Spinner Dolphin 0.000 0.000 1.949 3.821 0.634 2.429 1.967 1.523 0.903

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 0.000 0.000 13.755 26.888 4.279 16.048 12.821 9.510 6.112

Bottlenose Dolphin 0.000 0.000 5977.039 11748.210 2090.846 7908.443 6521.887 5266.486 3022.262

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 276.973 541.189 82.842 318.247 251.849 183.622 117.174

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian Manatee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia

Hooded Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gray Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Harbor Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tables-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-11 

Annual Level B Take Estimates (160-dB criteria) from Airgun Surveys for Marine Mammal Species

during the Project Period (2012-2020)

Marine Mammal Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common Minke Whale 0.000 0.000 33.522 65.282 9.857 35.718 27.956 19.257 14.116

Sei Whale 0.000 0.000 192.625 377.801 63.466 242.395 196.917 153.588 90.689

Bryde's Whale 0.000 0.000 190.896 374.359 62.904 239.608 194.649 151.692 89.980

Blue Whale 0.000 0.000 213.901 418.875 68.622 259.980 209.629 159.949 98.045

Fin Whale 0.000 0.000 431.204 846.583 147.732 556.574 456.478 363.111 213.637

North Atlantic Right Whale 0.000 0.000 113.846 224.490 59.848 172.225 156.298 143.499 84.052

Humpback Whale 0.000 0.000 577.964 1131.230 181.646 692.987 555.789 419.002 257.919

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked Common Dolphin 0.000 0.000 305926.755 602423.698 109208.426 419770.312 348049.714 286178.116 157916.298

Pygmy Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 220.776 432.193 69.105 265.443 212.700 160.267 97.713

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 0.000 0.000 230744.930 453897.344 82353.473 310707.070 257487.079 210265.101 120018.336

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 0.000 0.000 29148.152 57077.138 9491.739 35481.323 28705.807 21997.239 13703.882

Risso’s Dolphin 0.000 0.000 158744.009 311717.478 54020.063 205411.212 168301.811 134043.314 78103.785

Northern Bottlenose Whale 0.000 0.000 12.462 24.544 4.259 17.031 13.994 11.395 6.003

Pygmy Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 232.353 450.073 54.784 209.782 153.072 85.460 75.450

Dwarf Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 1454.885 2842.740 417.949 1661.508 1303.577 940.144 582.097

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 0.000 0.000 457.481 896.987 143.826 567.919 456.474 350.144 202.187

Fraser's Dolphin 0.000 0.000 23.717 45.882 5.427 20.593 14.819 7.782 7.470

Sowerby's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 19.910 38.905 5.903 22.874 18.068 13.148 8.286

Blainville's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 3878.016 7577.415 1159.902 4455.915 3526.252 2570.966 1640.602

Gervais' Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 3878.016 7577.415 1159.902 4455.915 3526.252 2570.966 1640.602

True's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 3878.016 7577.415 1159.902 4455.915 3526.252 2570.966 1640.602

Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 192.589 376.649 59.002 226.289 180.233 133.567 83.546

Melon-Headed Whale 0.000 0.000 247.240 484.381 80.135 303.674 245.516 188.604 114.448

Harbor Porpoise 0.000 0.000 691.367 1352.385 219.996 820.894 659.933 497.063 317.088

Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 15566.706 30355.996 4361.663 16967.893 13184.100 9169.873 6101.896

False Killer Whale 0.000 0.000 274.527 538.213 91.113 343.104 279.084 217.358 130.741

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 0.000 0.000 43785.058 85864.840 14306.228 54878.902 44498.535 34596.047 20397.152

Clymene Dolphin 0.000 0.000 20306.091 39810.739 6604.129 25301.751 20489.358 15869.727 9412.707

Striped Dolphin 0.000 0.000 199827.536 391375.882 63793.815 243418.330 196086.989 149595.327 91041.146

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 0.000 0.000 291968.246 573121.475 96920.094 373738.318 304388.840 239755.284 137812.574

Spinner Dolphin 0.000 0.000 191.026 374.513 62.127 238.022 192.750 149.292 88.549

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 0.000 0.000 1348.103 2635.268 419.376 1572.892 1256.603 932.059 599.076

Bottlenose Dolphin 0.000 0.000 585809.587 1151442.029 204923.786 775106.463 639210.107 516168.326 296211.886

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 27146.110 53041.902 8119.316 31191.403 24683.766 17996.764 11484.217

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian Manatee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia

Hooded Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gray Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Harbor Seal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tables Tables-45

Table 4-12

Annual Level A Take Estimates from All Non-Airgun High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys Using Southall et al. (2007) Criteria

for Marine Mammal Species during the Project Period (2012-2020)

Marine Mammal Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common minke whale 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Sei whale 0.0020 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0021 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

Bryde's whale 0.0023 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0027 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

Blue whale 0.0002 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

Fin whale 0.0155 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0185 0.0053 0.0000 0.0000

North Atlantic right whale 0.0021 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0022 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

Humpback whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked common dolphin 4.0936 5.2235 5.2235 5.2235 5.2235 4.5460 1.1299 0.0000 0.0000

Pygmy killer whale 0.0004 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0053 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0053 0.0000 0.0000

Long-finned pilot whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Risso’s dolphin 1.8630 2.2287 2.2287 2.2287 2.2287 2.0205 0.3658 0.0000 0.0000

Northern bottlenose whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Pygmy sperm whale 0.0048 0.0064 0.0064 0.0064 0.0064 0.0059 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000

Dwarf sperm whale 0.0145 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0178 0.0047 0.0000 0.0000

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Fraser's dolphin 0.0001 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

Sowerby's beaked whale 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Blainville's beaked whale 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Gervais' beaked whale 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

True's beaked whale 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Killer whale 0.0025 0.0061 0.0061 0.0061 0.0061 0.0058 0.0036 0.0000 0.0000

Melon-headed whale 0.0001 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

Harbor porpoise 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

Sperm whale 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

False killer whale 0.0001 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.4477 0.5868 0.6200 0.6200 0.6200 0.5432 0.1677 0.0287 0.0287

Clymene dolphin 0.2139 0.2803 0.2962 0.2962 0.2962 0.2595 0.0801 0.0137 0.0137

Striped dolphin 0.5954 0.7674 0.8121 0.8121 0.8121 0.7114 0.2107 0.0386 0.0386

Atlantic spotted dolphin 5.3991 6.9574 7.3614 7.3614 7.3614 6.4414 1.8980 0.3397 0.3397

Spinner dolphin 0.0020 0.0026 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0024 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0099 0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0134 0.0047 26.1283 0.0000

Bottlenose dolphin 1.2977 2.1422 2.3608 2.3608 2.3608 1.9922 1.0400 0.1955 0.1955

Cuvier's beaked whale 0.0013 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0013 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian manatee 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia

Hooded seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Gray seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Harbor seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Tables-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-13

Annual Level A Take Estimates from All Non-Airgun High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys Using 180-dB Criteria

for Marine Mammal Species during the Project Period (2012-2020)

Marine Mammal Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common minke whale 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0.0004

Sei whale 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0012 0.0008 0.0024

Bryde's whale 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0012 0.0008 0.0024

Blue whale 0.0007 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0015 0.0009 0.0026

Fin whale 0.0012 0.0016 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0018 0.0031 0.0019 0.0055

North Atlantic right whale 0.0020 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0027 0.0051 0.0031 0.0089

Humpback whale 0.0025 0.0034 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0034 0.0037 0.0022 0.0066

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked common dolphin 1.2187 1.4589 1.4946 1.4946 1.4946 1.5087 2.0876 1.3143 3.8682

Pygmy killer whale 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0011 0.0008 0.0024

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0132 0.0166 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.1358 1.2475 0.8050 2.3163

Long-finned pilot whale 0.0027 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0153 0.1295 0.0932 0.2808

Risso’s dolphin 0.0913 0.1118 0.1118 0.1118 0.1118 0.1826 0.8666 0.5861 1.7367

Northern bottlenose whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001

Pygmy sperm whale 0.0011 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0007 0.0005 0.0017

Dwarf sperm whale 0.0034 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0057 0.0038 0.0119

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0017 0.0014 0.0044

Fraser's dolphin 0.0004 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002

Sowerby's beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002

Blainville's beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0013 0.0134 0.0104 0.0320

Gervais' beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0013 0.0134 0.0104 0.0320

True's beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0013 0.0134 0.0104 0.0320

Killer whale 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0010 0.0007 0.0021

Melon-headed whale 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0014 0.0009 0.0029

Harbor porpoise 0.0016 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0019 0.0031 0.0023 0.0068

Sperm whale 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0041 0.0430 0.0377 0.1213

False killer whale 0.0004 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0016 0.0010 0.0029

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.3036 0.4453 0.4509 0.4509 0.4509 0.4381 0.3559 0.1610 0.4798

Clymene dolphin 0.1450 0.2127 0.2154 0.2154 0.2154 0.2088 0.1643 0.0729 0.2170

Striped dolphin 0.3964 0.5755 0.5831 0.5831 0.5831 0.6088 0.9086 0.5299 1.5825

Atlantic spotted dolphin 3.4607 4.9269 4.9955 4.9955 4.9955 4.7511 3.0827 1.2151 3.5657

Spinner dolphin 0.0013 0.0019 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0019 0.0015 0.0007 0.0020

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0057 0.0074 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0073 0.0080 0.0052 0.0164

Bottlenose dolphin 0.9382 1.4056 1.4650 1.4650 1.4650 1.6672 3.8323 2.2521 6.4434

Cuvier's beaked whale 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0090 0.0939 0.0726 0.2243

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian manatee 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia

Hooded seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Gray seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Harbor seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Tables Tables-47

Table 4-14

Annual Level B Take Estimates from All Non-Airgun High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys Using 160-dB Criteria

for Marine Mammal Species during the Project Period (2012-2020)

Marine Mammal Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common minke whale 0.0225 0.0287 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0282 0.0200 0.0135 0.0419

Sei whale 0.0358 0.0476 0.0511 0.0511 0.0511 0.0557 0.1152 0.0784 0.2328

Bryde's whale 0.0355 0.0470 0.0505 0.0505 0.0505 0.0553 0.1169 0.0790 0.2338

Blue whale 0.0659 0.0980 0.1037 0.1037 0.1037 0.1048 0.1448 0.0871 0.2568

Fin whale 0.1153 0.1598 0.1665 0.1665 0.1665 0.1722 0.3083 0.1847 0.5384

North Atlantic right whale 0.1945 0.2461 0.2491 0.2491 0.2491 0.2690 0.5016 0.3002 0.8702

Humpback whale 0.2454 0.3285 0.3444 0.3444 0.3444 0.3313 0.3597 0.2189 0.6492

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked common dolphin 119.4440 142.9833 146.4839 146.4839 146.4839 147.8699 204.6009 128.8144 379.1270

Pygmy killer whale 0.0345 0.0494 0.0494 0.0494 0.0494 0.0549 0.1097 0.0759 0.2370

Short-finned pilot whale 1.2920 1.6287 1.6711 1.6711 1.6711 13.3054 122.2637 78.8942 227.0254

Long-finned pilot whale 0.2621 0.3201 0.3267 0.3267 0.3267 1.4975 12.6893 9.1359 27.5252

Risso’s dolphin 8.9444 10.9577 10.9577 10.9577 10.9577 17.8981 84.9354 57.4417 170.2112

Northern bottlenose whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0063 0.0041 0.0118

Pygmy sperm whale 0.1119 0.1503 0.1503 0.1503 0.1503 0.1410 0.0732 0.0472 0.1675

Dwarf sperm whale 0.3358 0.4508 0.4508 0.4508 0.4508 0.4557 0.5592 0.3686 1.1655

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 0.0027 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0208 0.1680 0.1357 0.4275

Fraser's dolphin 0.0345 0.0568 0.0637 0.0637 0.0637 0.0575 0.0304 0.0098 0.0183

Sowerby's beaked whale 0.0023 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0030 0.0073 0.0056 0.0175

Blainville's beaked whale 0.0023 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.1259 1.3153 1.0167 3.1400

Gervais' beaked whale 0.0023 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.1259 1.3153 1.0167 3.1400

True's beaked whale 0.0026 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.1265 1.3156 1.0167 3.1400

Killer whale 0.0509 0.0642 0.0678 0.0678 0.0678 0.0680 0.0952 0.0667 0.2021

Melon-headed whale 0.0361 0.0525 0.0525 0.0525 0.0525 0.0604 0.1362 0.0921 0.2839

Harbor porpoise 0.1543 0.1717 0.1812 0.1812 0.1812 0.1894 0.2990 0.2206 0.6643

Sperm whale 0.0182 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.4051 4.2127 3.6965 11.8913

False killer whale 0.0389 0.0582 0.0582 0.0582 0.0582 0.0674 0.1524 0.0959 0.2885

Pantropical spotted dolphin 29.7529 43.6445 44.1968 44.1968 44.1968 42.9366 34.8805 15.7818 47.0220

Clymene dolphin 14.2145 20.8513 21.1152 21.1152 21.1152 20.4600 16.1068 7.1416 21.2706

Striped dolphin 38.8529 56.4013 57.1529 57.1529 57.1529 59.6638 89.0555 51.9312 155.0979

Atlantic spotted dolphin 339.1818 482.8880 489.6133 489.6133 489.6133 465.6510 302.1377 119.0890 349.4761

Spinner dolphin 0.1306 0.1899 0.1924 0.1924 0.1924 0.1862 0.1484 0.0672 0.2001

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.5554 0.7281 0.7355 0.7355 0.7355 0.7138 0.7853 0.5128 1.6114

Bottlenose dolphin 91.9501 137.7600 143.5851 143.5851 143.5851 163.3981 375.6071 220.7238 631.5169

Cuvier's beaked whale 0.0158 0.0181 0.0181 0.0181 0.0181 0.8810 9.2072 7.1172 21.9798

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian manatee 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia

Hooded seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Gray seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Harbor seal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Tables-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-15

Comparison of Take Estimates from Acoustic Sources, without Mitigation

Activity Source and Harassment Level Incidental Take Estimates - Annual

Navy Training (concentrated in the VACAPES, Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes)

Level A 68

Level B 1,056,582

Beaked Whale Strandings 10

Navy Testing (concentrated in the VACAPES and Jacksonville Range Complexes)

Level A 163

Level B 747,620

Level A, Unmanned Vehicles Demonstrations ~51 times per year (average from 253 over a 5-yr period)

G&G Activities (throughout AOI)

Level A, seismic airgun, 180-dB criterion Listed species (except West Indian manatee):

• sperm whale – 45-310 individuals per year;

• humpback whale – 2-12 individuals per year;

• all other listed cetacean species – <9 individuals per year.

Nonlisted species (except four pinnipeds – hooded seal, gray seal, harbor seal, and harp seal):

• short-finned pilot whale – 840-4,631 individuals per year;

• bottlenose dolphin – 2,091-11,748 individuals per year;

• short-beaked common dolphin – 1,114-6,146 individuals per year;

• Atlantic spotted dolphin – 989-5,848 individuals per year;

• Risso’s dolphin – 551-3,180 individuals per year;

• Pantropical spotted dolphin – 146-876 individuals per year;

• Long-finned pilot whale – 97-582 individuals per year;

• Cuvier’s beaked whale – 83-541 individuals per year;

• Clymene dolphin – 67-406 individuals per year;

• other cetacean species – <100 individuals per year.

Level A, seismic airgun, Southall et al. (2007) criterion Listed species (except fin whale):

• humpback whale – 0.7-5.9 individuals per year;

• blue whale – 0.2-1.6 individuals per year;

• Bryde’s whale – 0.1-1.2 individuals per year;

• all other listed cetacean species – <1 individual per year.

Nonlisted species (species >50 individuals taken per year):

• Atlantic spotted dolphin – 202-1,496 individuals per year;

• striped dolphin – 158-1,020 individuals per year;

• Risso’s dolphin – 87-731 individuals per year;

• pantropical spotted dolphin – 35-263 individuals per year;

• short-beaked common dolphin – 23-225 individuals per year;

• short-finned pilot whale – 12-151 individuals per year;

• Clymene dolphin – 17-126 individuals per year;

• long-finned pilot whale – 15-118 individuals per year.
Tables Tables-49

Table 4-15. Comparison of Take Estimates from Acoustic Sources, Without Mitigation (continued).

Activity Source and Harassment Level Incidental Take Estimates - Annual

Level B, seismic airgun, 160-dB criterion Listed species (except West Indian manatee):

• sperm whale – 4,361-30,356 individuals per year;

• North Atlantic right whale – 60-224 individuals per year;

• >100 individuals per year for all other listed species.

Nonlisted species (except four pinnipeds – hooded seal, gray seal, harbor seal, and harp seal):

• bottlenose dolphin – 1,151,442 individuals per year;

• short-beaked common dolphin – 602,424 individuals per year;

• Atlantic spotted dolphin – 573,121 individuals per year;

• short-finned pilot whale – 453,897 individuals per year;

• striped dolphin – 391,376 individuals per year;

• Risso’s dolphin – 311,717 individuals per year.

Level A, non-airgun HRG surveys, 180-dB criterion Listed species (except West Indian manatee):

• <1 individual per year for all listed species.

Nonlisted species (except four pinnipeds – hooded seal, gray seal, harbor seal, and harp seal):

• bottlenose dolphin – <1-6 individuals per year;

• Atlantic spotted dolphin – 1-5 individuals per year;

• short-beaked common dolphin – 1-4 individuals per year;

• short-finned pilot whale, Risso’s dolphin, striped dolphin – <1-2 individuals per year;

• <1 individual per year for all nonlisted species.

Level A, non-airgun HRG surveys, Southall et al. (2007) 

criterion 

Listed species (except fin whale):

• all listed cetacean species – <1 individual per year.

Nonlisted species (species >50 individuals taken per year):

• Atlantic spotted dolphin – <1-7 individuals per year;

• short-beaked common dolphin – 0-5 individuals per year;

• Risso’s dolphin – 0-2 individuals per year;

• bottlenose dolphin – <1-2 individuals per year.

Level B, non-airgun HRG surveys, 160-dB criterion Listed species (except West Indian manatee):

• sperm whale – <1-12 individuals per year;

• all other listed cetacean species – <1 individual per year.

Nonlisted species (except four pinnipeds – hooded seal, gray seal, harbor seal, and harp seal):

• bottlenose dolphin – 632 individuals per year;

• Atlantic spotted dolphin – 490 individuals per year;

• short-beaked common dolphin – 379 individuals per year;

• short-finned pilot whale – 227 individuals per year;

• Risso’s dolphin – 170 individuals per year;

• striped dolphin – 155 individuals per year;

• other cetacean species – <50 individuals per year.
Tables-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-16 

Sea Turtles Occurring in the Area of Interest

Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Occurrence

in Area

of Interest

Life Stage Primary Nesting Sites

States with 

Nesting Reported 

in Area of Interest

ESA-Designated

Critical Habitat

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle T2 DE–FL All

Florida beaches: Brevard, 

Indian River, St. Lucie, 

Martin, Palm Beach, and 

Broward Counties

VA, NC, SC, 

GA, FL Pending

Chelonia mydas Green turtle E, T3 DE–FL All

Florida beaches: Brevard, 

Indian River, St. Lucie, 

Martin, Palm Beach, and 

Broward Counties

NC, SC, GA, FL Culebra Island, Puerto Rico

Eretmochelys 

imbricata Hawksbill turtle E 

DE–FL 

(uncommon 

north of FL)

All

Mexican beaches: Yucatán 

Peninsula; Caribbean 

Beaches: Puerto Rico 

[Culebra, Mona, and 

Vieques Islands], Barbados

--

Mona, Culebrita, and 

Culebra Islands, Puerto 

Rico; specific beaches on 

Culebra Island (Playa 

Resaca, Playa Brava, and 

Playa Larga), and the 

waters surrounding the 

islands of Mona and 

Monito

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley turtle E DE–FL

Juveniles 

and 

Adults

Mexican beaches: 

Tamaulipas and Veracruz NC, SC, FL Pending

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle E DE–FL All Florida beaches (southeast 

coast) NC, SC, GA, FL

U.S. Virgin Islands: a strip 

of land 0.2-mi wide at 

Sandy Point Beach, 

St. Croix and the waters 

adjacent to the site 1 Status: E = endangered (E); T = threatened. 2The loggerhead turtle is currently classified as threatened throughout its range. In March 2010, NMFS and FWS proposed to list the Northwest Atlantic 

Ocean population of loggerhead turtles as endangered (Federal Register, 2010g). 3 The green turtle is threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is endangered (USDOC, NMFS, 2011g).
Tables Tables-51

Table 4-17 

Families of Seabirds, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds Occurring in the Area of Interest

Order Family General Ecology General Distribution/Migration

SEABIRDS

Charadriiformes 

Laridae 

(Gulls and terns)

Primarily inhabit coastal or inshore waters. Conspicuous and 

gregarious in nature. Nest colonially on the ground. Most feed on 

small fishes with some foraging on insects and crabs. Terns typically 

forage by hovering above the water’s surface and plunge-diving 

head-first into the water from flight. Gulls seldom dive and prefer open 

areas. Highly adaptable.

Found predominantly along the coast but also inland 

in both populated and open areas. Found in the 

Arctic, northern Canada, and northern U.S., with 

some species migrating south to Mexico and South 

America.

Rhyncopidae 

(Skimmers) 

Primarily inhabit coastal and inshore waters. Nest colonially on sandy 

beaches. Forages for small fishes mainly at night, flying over shallow 

water with their elongated lower mandible below the water surface.

Year-round coastal distribution throughout the AOI. 

Stercorariidae 

(Skuas and jaegers)

Primarily oceanic, generally coming to land only to nest. Commonly 

acquire food by kleptoparasitism of other seabird species. Predatory 

when on nesting grounds.

Migratory species, wintering within the southern 

portion of the AOI and moving to arctic habitats to 

nest during the summer.

Alcidae

(Puffins, murres, 

murrelets, and auklets)

Oceanic species that come to land only to nest. Most nest colonially in 

crevices or burrows. All use their wings for underwater propulsion to 

pursue prey. Specialized bill shapes relate to feeding habits and prey 

types. 

Occur year-round in arctic and subarctic marine 

habitats. In summer months, they occur at sea and at 

coastal nesting locations. In winter, they generally 

occur in oceanic waters, and individuals may move 

southward into temperate waters.

Gaviiformes Gaviidae 

(Loons) 

Medium to large birds that capture prey (fishes, crustaceans, and other 

aquatic organisms) by diving and pursuing underwater. Habitat 

includes tundra lakes and ponds in summer and coastal waters in winter. 

Nest on banks of ponds or lakes and winter on the open water. 

Holarctic in the summer in freshwater areas. Highly 

migratory to more marine areas in northern Mexico 

for winter. 

Pelicaniformes 

Pelicanidae (Pelicans)

Very large, social water birds that swim buoyantly and feed 

predominantly on fishes and crustaceans in primarily shallow estuarine 

waters, occasionally up to 40 miles from shore. Plunges bill-first into 

the water while fishing and often flies just above the water surface 

looking for prey. Nesting occurs usually on coastal islands, on the 

ground, or in small bushes and trees.

Found in freshwater and marine coastal waters. 

Breeding range extends along the along Atlantic 

coast from Maryland south to Florida. The primary 

winter range includes Florida and the Gulf coast. 

Breeding activities extremely sensitive to human 

activity.

Phaethontidae 

(Tropicbirds) 

A mainly pelagic, highly aerial, solitary seabird found far offshore over 

and resting on warm water. Feed by plunge-diving. Nests in small to 

large colonies on tropical islands in rocky crevices, holes, or caves.

Distributed in tropical and subtropical waters. 

Occasionally found within the Gulfstream offshore 

of the south Atlantic coast. Breeds in Bermuda.

Phalacrocoracidae

(Cormorants) 

Large, gregarious water birds found in coastal bays, marine islands, and 

seacoasts usually within sight of land. Some species are found along 

rocky shores, while other are found in open water. Eats mostly 

schooling fishes by diving.

Migratory and dispersive. Found along temperate 

and tropical marine coasts. Cosmopolitan. Northern 

coastal populations migrate southward for 

nonbreeding season and usually follow coastlines.

Sulidae 

(Gannets and boobies)

Gregarious and colonial breeders in marine environment. Fish by 

plunging from air for fishes and squids. Boobies land-roost and gannets 

rest on open ocean. Nests in colonies on islands and rock stacks.

Tropical, subtropical, and temperate oceans. 

Oceanic, with some found well offshore while others 

stay close to shore. 

Fregatidae 

(Frigatebirds) 

Found in offshore and coastal waters. Feeding habits are pelagic and 

include snatching prey from the sea surface or beach, or in some cases 

by robbing other seabirds of their catch (kleptoparasitism).

One species (magnificent frigatebird [Fregatta 

magnificens]) occurs within the AOI. It is 

widespread in the tropical Atlantic. 
Tables-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-17. Families of Seabirds, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds Occurring in the Area of Interest (continued). 

Order Family General Ecology General Distribution/Migration

Podicipediformes Podicipedidae 

(Grebes) 

Found in ponds, lakes, salt bays, and nearshore habitats. Feed by 

diving. Spend virtually all their time in the water and are clumsy on 

land.

Cosmopolitan. Migrate from inland breeding areas 

to temperate nearshore areas. Breed on fresh water.

Procellariiformes 

Hydrobatidae 

(Storm-petrels) 

Medium to large seabirds found over the open ocean and come to land 

only for nesting. Colonial breeders. Feed on plankton, crustaceans, and 

small fishes. Nest on sea islands.

Breed November–May in the Antarctic and are 

transequatorial migrants offshore at higher latitudes 

of Atlantic.

Procellariidae 

(Petrels and shearwaters)

Highly pelagic and return to land only for breeding. Feed on fishes, 

squids, and crustaceans. Colonial breeders on marine islands.

Transequatorial. Most breed in the northern Atlantic 

and migrate south in summer as far as South 

America. One species breeds in New Zealand and 

migrates north to northern Atlantic.

WATERFOWL 

Anseriformes 

Anatidae (Aythyinae)

(Diving Ducks)

Mainly in freshwater and estuarine environments, but species such as 

the greater scaup become marine during the winter. Breed in marshes. 

All dive for food including aquatic vegetation, mollusks, and 

crustaceans.

Arctic, circumpolar during nesting season. Migrate 

into temperate areas in winter. Frequent inland 

waters, estuaries and bays, and nearshore waters. 

Anatidae (Merginae)

(Sea Ducks)

Found in marine environment along seacoast. Breed in marshes. All 

dive for food including mollusks and crustaceans.

Arctic, circumpolar during nesting season. Most 

migrate into subarctic and northern temperate areas 

in winter. Frequent coastal waters and open water 

near pack ice.

SHOREBIRDS

Charadriiformes 

Charadriidae 

(Plovers) 

Wading birds found along mud flats, shores, and beaches that feed on 

small marine life, insects, and some vegetable matter. Nest singly or in 

loose colonies.

Arctic, circumpolar. Winter along coastal U.S. to 

South America, migrating along the coast. 

Haematopodidae

(Oystercatchers)

Large wading birds found along the coastal shores and tidal flats. Feed 

on mollusks, crabs, and marine worms.

Distribution from Cape Cod south to Chile and 

Argentina.

Recurvirostridae 

(Stilts and avocets)

Slim wading birds found along beaches and mud flats. Feed on insects, 

crustaceans, and other aquatic organisms. Typically nest on open flats 

or areas with scattered tufts of grass on islands.

Breed in southwest Canada and make seasonal 

migration to southern U.S. to Guatemala.

Scolopacidae 

(Sandpipers, snipes, 

phalaropes, and allies)

Small to medium sized wading birds found along mud flats, tidal flats, 

shores, beaches, and salt marshes. Red and red-necked phalaropes 

occur in small groups along weed lines on the open ocean. Feed on

insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and worms.

Cosmopolitan. Migrate along coast from northern 

North America south as far as southern South 

America.

Sources: Peterson, 1980; Harrison, 1983, 1987; Sibley, 2000; Morrison et al., 2001a; NatureServe, InfoNatura, 2010. 
Tables Tables-53

Table 4-18 

Important Bird Areas within Offshore, Nearshore, and Coastal Habitats Within and Adjacent to the Area of Interest

IBA Site State Latitude Longitude Habitat Resources of Concern

Assateague Island MD 38.62° 75.94° Barrier Island Shorebirds, Seabirds

Chesapeake Bay Islands VA 37.84° 75.99° Coastal Waterfowl, Seabirds

Barrier Island/Lagoon System VA 37.53° 75.68° Barrier Island/Coastal Shorebirds, Seabirds

Back Bay VA 36.62° 75.94° Coastal Shorebirds

Outer Banks Inshore Ocean NC 35.90° 75.58° Offshore Seabirds, Waterfowl

Outer Continental Shelf NC 35.30° 75.33° Offshore Seabirds

Cape Hatteras National Seashore NC 35.20° 75.53° Barrier Island Shorebirds, Seabirds

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC 34.60° 76.53° Barrier Island Shorebirds

Onslow Bay NC 34.20° 77.78° Offshore/Coastal Seabirds, Waterfowl

Bald Head-Smith Island NC 33.87° 77.97° Coastal Shorebirds, Waterfowl

Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge SC 33.02° 79,50° Barrier Island/Coastal Shorebirds, Waterfowl, Seabirds 

Crab Bank SC 32.98° 79.98° Coastal Seabirds

Bird Key Stono SC 32.63° 79.98° Barrier Island Seabirds, Shorebirds

Little Tybee Island State Heritage Preserve GA 31.97° 80.90° Barrier Island Shorebirds, Waterfowl, Seabirds

St. Catherines Island GA 31.63° 81.15° Barrier Island Shorebirds, Waterfowl, 

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge GA 31.55° 80.96° Coastal Shorebirds, Waterfowl

Altamaha River Delta GA 31.30° 81.31° Coastal Shorebirds, Waterfowl, Seabirds

Jekyll Island GA 31.05° 81.42° Barrier Island Shorebirds, Seabirds

Cumberland Island National Seashore GA 30.83° 81.42° Barrier Island Seabirds, Waterfowl, Shorebirds

Huguenot Park-Nassau Sound FL 30.51° 81.45° Coastal Shorebirds, Seabirds

Duval and Nassau Tidal Marshes FL 30.48° 81.44° Barrier Island/Coastal Shorebirds

Fort George and Talbot Islands FL 30.45° 81.42° Coastal Shorebirds, Seabirds

Northern Atlantic Migrant Stopover FL 29.86° 81.27° Coastal Shorebirds, Seabirds

Matanzas Inlet and River FL 29.71° 81.23° Coastal Shorebirds

Cape Canaveral – Merritt Island FL 28.54° 80.67° Barrier Island/Coastal Shorebirds, Waterfowl, Seabirds

Abbreviation: IBA = Important Bird Area.

Source: National Audubon Society, Inc. (http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/index.html). 
Tables-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-19 

Plant, Invertebrate, and Fish Species and Species Groups Broadly Associated with Demersal and Pelagic Habitats

in the Area of Interest Managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, New England Fishery Management Council,

and/or Highly Migratory Species Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service

Species or Species Groups SAFMC MAFMC NEFMC NMFS

Demersal

Coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom ■ -- -- --

Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) ■ -- -- --

Snapper-grouper complex (73 species) ■ -- -- --

Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) ■ ■ -- --

Black sea bass (Centropristis striata) ■ ■ -- --

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) ■ ■ -- --

Surfclam (Spisula solidissima) -- ■ -- --

Ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) -- ■ -- --

Sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) -- -- ■ --

Calico scallop (Argopecten gibbus ) -- -- -- --

Golden crab (Chaceon fenneri) ■ -- -- --

Red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) -- -- ■ --

Shrimps (Penaeidae and Sicyonidae) ■ -- -- --

Monkfish (Lophius americanus) -- ■ -- --

Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) -- ■ ■ --

Offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) -- ■ ■ --

Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) -- -- ■ --

Red hake (Urophycis chuss) -- -- ■ --

Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) -- -- ■ --

Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) -- -- ■ --

Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) -- -- ■ --

Pelagic

Sargassum ■ -- -- --

Long-finned squid (Loligo pealei) -- ■ -- --

Short-finned squid (Illix illecebrosus) -- ■ -- --

Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) ■ -- -- --

King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) ■ -- -- --

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) ■ -- -- --

Little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) ■ -- -- --

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) -- ■ -- --

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) -- ■ -- --

Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) -- ■ -- --

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) -- -- ■ --

Small coastal sharks (5 species) -- -- -- ■

Large coastal sharks (17 species) -- -- -- ■

Pelagic sharks (6 species) -- -- -- --

Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) ■ -- -- --

Dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) ■ -- -- --

Tunas and billfishes (Scombridae, Istiophoridae, Xiphiidae) -- -- -- ■

Abbreviations: MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; NEFMC = New England Fishery 

Management Council; NMFC = Highly Migratory Species Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service;

SAFMC = South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Tables Tables-55

Table 4-20

Hard Bottom Species with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Spiny lobster

(Panulirus argus) 

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream Not in AOI

Live/hard bottom and 

artificial reefs with mediumto high-profile outcroppings 

from nearshore to at least 

100-m water depths from 

Cape Hatteras, NC, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL

Black sea bass

(Centropristis striata) 

Surface waters of the 

AOI shelf from 

May-October

Demersal soft and hard bottom 

habitats of the AOI shelf where 

water temperatures are greater than 

6 °C and salinity greater than 18 ppt

Demersal soft and hard 

bottom habitats of the AOI 

shelf where water 

temperatures are greater than 

6 °C and salinity greater than 

18 ppt

Warsaw grouper

(Epinephelus nigritus) 

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream 

including pelagic 

Sargassum

Live/hard bottom and artificial reefs 

with medium to high profile 

outcroppings from inner shelf to at 

least 200-m water depths

Live/hard bottom and 

artificial reefs with medium 

to high profile outcroppings 

from 50-m to at least 200-m 

water depths. Spawning 

occurs in the same area

Snowy grouper

(Epinephelus niveatus)

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream 

including pelagic 

Sargassum

Live/hard bottom and artificial reefs 

with medium to high profile 

outcroppings from inner shelf to at 

least 200-m water depths

Live/hard bottom and 

artificial reefs with medium 

to high profile outcroppings 

from 50-m to at least 200-m 

water depths. Spawning 

occurs in the same area

Gag grouper

(Mycteroperca 

microlepis) 

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream 

including pelagic 

Sargassum

Not in AOI

Live/hard bottom and 

artificial reefs with medium 

to high profile outcroppings 

from nearshore to at least 

100-m water depths from 

Cape Hatteras, NC, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL. 

Spawning occurs in winter 

months in 30- to 100-m 

depths

Scamp

(Mycteroperca 

phenax) 

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream 

including pelagic 

Sargassum

Hard bottom areas on the shelf to the 

shelf edge from Cape Hatteras, NC, 

to Cape Canaveral, FL

Hard bottom areas from 

Cape Hatteras, NC, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL

Wreckfish

(Polyprion 

americanus) 

Gulf Stream waters 

including pelagic 

Sargassum

Not enough information

Live/hard bottom and 

artificial reefs with medium 

to high profile outcroppings 

in 800- to 1,200-m water 

depths

Gray snapper

(Lutjanus griseus) 

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream

Hard bottom and soft bottom areas 

on the shelf from Cape Hatteras, 

NC, to Cape Canaveral, FL

Hard bottom areas from 

Cape Hatteras, NC, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL
Tables-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-20. Hard Bottom Species with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest (AOI) 

(continued).

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Red snapper

(Lutjanus 

campechanus)

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream Not in AOI 

Hard bottom areas from

Cape Hatteras, NC, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL

Lane snapper

(Lutjanus synagris) 

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream Not in AOI

Hard bottom areas from 

Cape Hatteras, NC, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL

Vermilion snapper

(Rhomboplites 

aurorubens)

Surface waters of the 

SAB and Gulf Stream

Hard bottom areas on the shelf to the 

shelf edge from Cape Hatteras, NC, 

to Cape Canaveral, FL

Hard bottom areas from 

Cape Hatteras, NC, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL

Scup

(Stenotomus chrysops) Not in AOI Not in AOI

Demersal waters of the 

continental shelf off the 

middle Atlantic south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC

Blueline tilefish

(Caulolatilus microps)

Gulf Stream waters 

including pelagic 

Sargassum

Not enough information

Soft or rough bottom in water 

depths between 100 and 

400 m

Tilefish

(Lopholatilus 

chamaleonticeps) 

Water column on the 

outer continental shelf 

and slope throughout 

the AOI boundary in 

temperatures between 

7.5 and 17.5 °C

Semi-lithified clay substrate on the 

outer continental shelf and slope 

throughout the AOI in bottom water 

temperatures which range from 

9-14 °C, in depths between 100 and 

300 m 

Semi-lithified clay substrate 

on the outer continental shelf 

and slope throughout the AOI 

in bottom water temperatures 

ranging from 9 to 14 °C, in 

depths between 100 and 

300 m

AOI = Area of Interest.

Sources: SAFMC, 1998; MAFMC, 1998a, 2008a.
Tables Tables-57

Table 4-21 

Soft Bottom Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Surfclam

(Spisula solidissima) Not enough information

In substrate, to a depth of 3 ft 

below the water/sediment surface 

throughout the MAB from the 

shoreline out to 70 m 

In substrate, to a depth of 3 ft 

below the water/sediment 

surface throughout the MAB 

from the shoreline out to 

70 m 

Ocean quahog

(Arctica islandica) Not enough information

In substrate, to a depth of 3 ft 

below the water/sediment surface 

throughout the MAB in water 

depths from 10-244 m

In substrate, to a depth of 3 ft 

below the water/sediment 

surface throughout the MAB 

from the shoreline out to 

10-244 m 

Sea scallop

(Placopecten 

magellanicus) 

Bottom habitats in the 

middle Atlantic south to 

the VA-NC border; Eggs 

are heavier than seawater 

and remain on the seafloor 

until they develop into the 

first free-swimming larval 

stage. Generally, eggs are 

thought to occur where 

water temperatures are 

below 17 °C. Larvae 

occur in pelagic waters 

and bottom habitats with a 

substrate of gravelly sand, 

shell fragments, and 

pebbles, or on various red 

algae, hydroids, amphipod 

tubes, and bryozoans in 

the MAB south to the 

VA-NC border where sea 

surface temperatures are 

below 18 °C and salinities 

are between 16.9 and 

30 ppt 

Bottom habitats with a substrate 

of cobble, shells, and silt in the 

middle Atlantic south to the 

VA-NC border where water 

temperatures are below 15 °C and 

water depths range from 

18-110 m 

Bottom habitats with a 

substrate of cobble, shells, 

coarse/gravelly sand, and 

sand in the middle Atlantic 

south to the VA-NC border 

where water temperatures are 

below 21 °C, water depths 

range from 18 to 110 m, and 

salinities are above 16.5 ppt. 

Spawning occurs from May 

through October, with peaks 

in May and June

Calico scallop

(Argopecten gibbus) Not enough information

Unconsolidated sediments 

including hard sand bottoms, sand 

and shell hash, quartz sand, 

smooth sand-shell-gravel, and 

sand and dead shell in 13-94 m, 

with concentrations occurring off 

Cape Canaveral, FL (Stuart to 

St. Augustine) and sporadically 

off Cape Lookout, NC, in 

19-31 m, and offshore of the 

SC/GA border in 37-45 m

Unconsolidated sediments 

including hard sand bottoms, 

sand and shell hash, quartz 

sand, smooth 

sand-shell-gravel, and sand 

and dead shell in 13-94 m, 

with concentrations occurring 

off Cape Canaveral, FL 

(Stuart to St. Augustine), and 

sporadically off Cape 

Lookout, NC, in 19-31 m, 

and offshore of the SC/GA 

border in 37-45 m
Tables-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-21. Soft Bottom Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest 

(continued). 

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Golden crab

(Chaceon fenneri) 

Eggs are brooded attached 

to the underside of the 

female crab until they 

hatch into larvae and are 

released into the water 

column. Egg-bearing 

females are most 

commonly found on the 

shallow continental slope 

between 300 and 600 m; 

larvae occur in pelagic 

waters of the Gulf Stream

Soft bottom including 

foraminiferal ooze, dead coral 

mounds, dunes, and black pebble 

habitat in water depths of 

367-549 m

Soft bottom including 

foraminiferal ooze, dead coral 

mounds, dunes, and black 

pebble habitat in water depths 

of 367-549 m 

Red crab

(Chaceon quinquedens) 

Eggs are brooded attached 

to the underside of the 

female crab until they 

hatch into larvae and are 

released into the water 

column. Egg-bearing 

females are most 

commonly found on the 

shallow continental slope 

between 200 and 400 m 

where temperatures are 

typically between 4 and 

10 °C and water depths 

range from 200 to 400 m 

to Cape Hatteras, NC. 

Larvae occur in the water 

column from the surface to 

the seafloor across the 

200 to 1,800 m along the 

MAB south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC where 

water temperatures range 

between 4 and 25 °C, 

salinities between 29 and 

36 ppt, and dissolved 

oxygen between 5 and 

8 ml/L; larvae appear to be 

most common during 

January through June

Bottom habitats of the continental 

slope with a substrate of silts, 

clays, and all silt-clay-sand 

composites within the depths of 

700-1,800 m along the southern 

flank of Georges Bank and south 

to Cape Hatteras, NC, where 

water temperatures are between 

4 and 10 °C, and salinities are 

approximately 35 ppt, and 

dissolved oxygen range between 

3 and 7 mg/L

Bottom habitats of the 

continental slope with a 

substrate of silts, clays, and 

all silt-clay-sand composites 

within the depths of 200 to 

1,300 m along the southern 

flank of Georges Bank and 

south to Cape Hatteras, NC 

where water temperatures are 

between 5 and 14 °C, 

salinities average 35 ppt, and 

dissolved oxygen range 

between 3 and 8 mg/L

Royal red shrimp

(Pleoticus robustus) 

Pelagic Gulf Stream 

waters

Soft bottom including blue/black 

mud, sand, muddy sand, and 

white calcareous mud on the 

upper continental slope in water 

depths of 180-475 m 

Soft bottom including 

blue/black mud, sand, muddy 

sand, and white calcareous 

mud on the upper continental 

slope in water depths of 

180-475 m
Tables Tables-59

Table 4-21. Soft Bottom Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest 

(continued). 

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Rock shrimp

(Syconia spp.) 

Eggs and larvae in high 

salinity coastal waters of 

the SAB

Terrigenous and biogenic sand 

bottom habitats from 18 to 182 m 

in depth with highest 

concentrations occurring between 

34 and 55 m in all areas from NC 

to Cape Canaveral, FL

Terrigenous and biogenic 

sand bottom habitats from 

18 to 182 m in depth with 

highest concentrations 

occurring between 34 and 

55 m. areas from NC to 

Cape Canaveral, FL. 

Spawning occurs in the same 

area

Brown shrimp

(Farfantepenaeus 

aztecus) 

Eggs and larvae in high 

salinity coastal waters of 

the SAB

Not in AOI (primarily in inshore 

waters)

Nearshore SAB shelf with 

medium to fine grained 

sediment. Spawning occurs 

offshore 

Pink shrimp

(Farfantepenaeus 

duorarum) 

Eggs and larvae in high 

salinity coastal waters of 

the SAB

Not in AOI (primarily in inshore 

waters)

Coarse and particularly 

calcareous bottom sediments 

in SAB from mid- to outer 

shelf depths. Spawning 

occurs offshore

White shrimp

(Litopenaeus setiferus) 

Eggs and larvae in high 

salinity coastal waters of 

the SAB

Not in AOI (primarily in inshore 

waters)

Nearshore SAB shelf with 

medium to fine grained 

sediment 

Monkfish 

(Lophius americanus) 

MAB shelf areas south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC, with 

water temperatures below 

15 °C and depths from 

15 to 1,000 m for eggs and 

from 25 to 1,000 m for 

larvae; egg veils and 

larvae are most often 

observed from March to 

September

MAB shelf areas with water 

temperatures below 13 °C, depths 

from 25 to 200 m, and a salinity 

range from 29.9 to 36.7 ppt

Bottom habitats with 

substrates of a sand-shell mix, 

algae covered rocks, hard 

sand, pebbly gravel, or mud 

along the outer MAB shelf

Offshore hake

(Merluccius albidus) 

MAB shelf to Cape 

Hatteras, NC where water 

temperatures less than 

20 °C and water depths 

less than 1,250 m all year 

at depths from 110 to 

270 m (eggs) and from 

70 to 130 m (larvae)

Bottom habitats along the outer 

MAB shelf south to Cape 

Hatteras, NC, generally where 

water temperatures are below 

12 °C and depths range from 

170 to 350 m

Bottom habitats along the 

outer MAB shelf south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC, where 

water temperatures are below 

12 °C and depths range from 

150 to 380 m. Spawning 

occurs throughout the year at 

depths from 330-550 m

Silver hake

(Merluccius bilinearis) 

Surface waters of the 

MAB south to Cape 

Hatteras where sea surface 

temperatures are below 

20 °C and water depths are 

50-130 m; larvae are 

observed all year, with 

peaks from July through 

September

Bottom habitats of all substrate 

types on the MAB shelf south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC, where water 

temperatures are below 21 °C, 

water depths 20-270 m, and 

salinities are greater than 20 ppt

Bottom habitats of all 

substrate types on the MAB 

shelf south to Cape Hatteras, 

NC, where water 

temperatures are below 22 °C 

and depths between 30 and 

325 m. Spawning occurs in 

the same area where water 

temperatures are below 13 °C
Tables-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-21. Soft Bottom Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest 

(continued). 

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Red hake

(Urophycis chuss) 

Continental shelf off the 

MAB south to Cape 

Hatteras, NC, where sea 

surface temperatures are 

below 10 °C along the 

inner shelf (eggs) or 19 °C 

in water depths less than 

200 m (larvae), in a 

salinity greater than 

0.5 ppt; May through 

November (eggs) to 

December (larvae), with 

peaks in June and July 

(eggs) and 

September-October 

(larvae)

Bottom habitats with a substrate 

of shell fragments, including 

areas with an abundance of live 

scallops on the shelf off the 

middle Atlantic south to Cape 

Hatteras, NC, where water 

temperatures are below 16 °C, 

depths are less than 100 m, and 

salinity ranges from 31-33 ppt

Bottom habitats in 

depressions with a substrate 

of sand and mud on the 

continental shelf off the 

middle Atlantic south to Cape 

Hatteras, NC, where water 

temperatures are below 

12 °C, water depths range 

from 10 to 130 m, and 

salinity ranges from 33 to 34 

ppt. Spawning occurs in 

water depths less than 100 m 

and salinity less than 25 ppt 

from May-November, with 

peaks in June and July

Witch flounder

(Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus) 

Surface waters to 250 m 

on the MAB shelf off the 

middle Atlantic south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC, where 

sea surface temperatures 

are below 13 °C over deep 

water with high salinities; 

larvae are most often 

observed from March 

through November, with 

peaks in May-July

Bottom habitats with a 

fine-grained substrate along the 

outer MAB shelf south to Cape 

Hatteras, NC, where witch water 

temperatures are below 13 °C, 

depths range from 50-450 m, and 

salinity ranges from 34-36 ppt 

Bottom habitats with a 

fine-grained substrate along 

the outer MAB continental 

shelf south to Chesapeake 

Bay, where water 

temperatures are below 

13 °C, depths range from 

25 to 300 m, and salinity 

ranges from 32 to 36 ppt. 

Spawning occurs from March 

through November, with 

peaks in May-August 

Summer flounder

(Paralichthys dentatus) 

Surface waters of the 

MAB shelf south to Cape 

Canaveral, FL; in water 

depths from shore to 98 m 

(eggs) and from 10 to 

70 m (larvae)

Demersal waters of the MAB 

shelf south to Cape Canaveral, 

FL, to water depths of 152 m

Demersal waters of the MAB 

shelf south to Cape 

Canaveral, FL, to water 

depths of 152 m. Spawning 

occurs between October and 

May

Windowpane 

(Scophthalmus aquosus) 

Pelagic waters of the MAB 

south to Cape Hatteras, 

NC where sea surface 

temperatures are less than 

20 °C and water depths 

less than 70 m; eggs and 

larvae are often observed 

from February-November 

with peaks in May and 

October

Bottom habitats with a substrate 

of mud or fine-grained sand on 

the MAB shelf south to Cape 

Hatteras, NC, where water 

temperatures are below 25 °C, 

depths range from 1-100 m, and 

salinities range between 5.5 and 

36 ppt 

Bottom habitats with a 

substrate of mud or 

fine-grained sand on the 

MAB shelf south to the 

VA-NC border where water 

temperatures are below 

26.8 °C, depths range from 

1 to 75 m, and salinities 

range between 5.5 and 36 ppt. 

Spawning occurs from 

February-December with a 

peak in May

Abbreviations: AOI = Area of Interest; MAB = Mid-Atlantic Bight; SAB = South Atlantic Bight.

Sources: MAFMC, 1998b, 2008a; SAFMC, 1998; NEFMC, 1998a,b,c; 2002. 
Tables Tables-61

Table 4-22 

Coastal Pelagic Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Longfin squid

(Loligo pealei) 

Coastal and offshore 

bottom habitats from 

Georges Bank southward 

to Cape Hatteras, NC egg 

masses are found attached 

to rocks and boulders on 

sand or mud bottom, as 

well as attached to aquatic 

vegetation where bottom 

water temperatures range 

between 10 and 23 °C, 

salinities range from 30 to 

32 ppt, and depths are less 

than 50 m

Pelagic waters of the continental 

shelf from the Gulf of Maine 

through Cape Hatteras, NC, from 

shore to 213 m water depths in 

temperatures ranging from 3.8 to 

27 °C

Pelagic waters of the continental 

shelf from the Gulf of Maine 

through Cape Hatteras, NC, from 

shore to 305 m water depths in 

temperatures ranging from 3.8 to 

27 °C

Shortfin squid

(Illex illecebrosus) 

Pelagic waters of the continental 

shelf from the Gulf of Maine 

through Cape Hatteras, NC, from 

shore to 183 m water depths in 

temperatures ranging from 2.2 to 

22.8 °C

Pelagic waters of the continental 

shelf from the Gulf of Maine 

through Cape Hatteras, NC, from 

shore to 183 m water depths in 

temperatures ranging from 3.8 to 

19 °C

Atlantic herring

(Clupea harengus) Not in AOI

Pelagic waters and bottom 

habitats in the MAB south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC. Generally, 

the following conditions exist 

where Atlantic herring juveniles 

are found: water temperatures 

below 10 °C, water depths from 

15 to 135 m, and a salinity range 

from 26 to 32 ppt

Pelagic waters and bottom 

habitats in the MAB south to 

Cape Hatteras, NC. Generally, 

the following conditions exist 

where Atlantic herring adults are 

found: water temperatures below 

10 °C, water depths from 20 to 

130 m, and salinity above from 

28 ppt

Cobia

(Rachycentron 

canadum) 

Pelagic waters of SAB and 

MAB from shore to the 

shelf edge

Shelf waters of SAB and MAB; 

artificial and natural hard 

bottom; associates with larger 

nekton (i.e., sharks, rays, sea 

turtles)

Shelf waters of SAB and MAB; 

artificial and natural hard bottom 

structures; associates with larger 

nekton (i.e., sharks, rays, sea 

turtles)

King mackerel

(Scomberomorus 

cavalla)

Pelagic waters of SAB and 

MAB from shore to the 

shelf edge

Shelf waters of SAB and MAB; 

associates with artificial and 

natural hard bottom

Shelf waters of SAB and MAB; 

associates with artificial and 

natural hard bottom

Spanish mackerel

(Scomberomorus 

maculatus)

Pelagic waters of SAB and 

MAB from shore to the 

shelf edge

Shelf and inshore waters of SAB 

and MAB; associates with 

artificial and natural hard bottom

Shelf and inshore waters of SAB 

and MAB; associates with 

artificial and natural hard bottom

Little tunny

(Euthynnus 

alletteratus)

Pelagic waters of SAB and 

MAB from shore to 

beyond the shelf edge

Shelf waters of MAB and SAB; 

associates with artificial and 

natural hard bottom

Shelf waters of MAB and SAB; 

associates with artificial and 

natural hard bottom

Atlantic mackerel

(Scomber scomber) 

Shelf waters of MAB from 

Maine to Cape Hatteras, 

NC

Shelf waters of MAB from 

Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC to 

320 m

Shelf waters from Maine to Cape 

Hatteras, NC (from shore to 

320 m

Bluefish

(Pomatomus saltatrix) 

Shelf waters of MAB from 

Maine to Cape Hatteras, 

NC

Estuaries and coastal waters of 

the AOI

Shelf and inshore waters of SAB 

and MAB
Tables-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-22. Coastal Pelagic Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of 

Interest (AOI) (continued).

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults

Butterfish

(Peprilus triacanthus) 

Pelagic waters of MAB 

from shore to beyond the 

shelf edge where 

temperatures range from 

11 to 17 °C

Pelagic waters of MAB from 

shore to beyond the shelf edge 

where temperatures are 11-20 °C 

and water depths range from 

10 to 366 m

Pelagic waters of MAB from 

shore to beyond the shelf edge 

where temperatures are 3-28 °C 

and water depths range from 

10-366 m

Spiny dogfish 

(Squalus acanthias) Does not apply

Shelf waters of the entire AOI to 

water depths of 390 m (1,280 ft) 

where temperatures range from 

3 to 28 oC

Shelf waters of the entire AOI to 

water depths of 450 m (1,476 ft) 

where temperatures range from 

3 to 28 oC

Abbreviations: AOI = Area of Interest; MAB = Mid-Atlantic Bight; SAB = South Atlantic Bight. 

Adapted from SAFMC, 1998; MAFMC, 1998c, 2008b.
Tables Tables-63

Table 4-23 

Small Coastal Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest

Species Neonate/Early Juveniles Late Juveniles/Subadults Adults

Angel shark

(Squatina dumerili) 

Off the coast of southern NJ, 

DE, and MD from 39° to 38° N 

in shallow coastal waters out to 

the 25-m isobath, including the 

mouth of Delaware Bay

Off the coast of southern NJ, 

DE, and MD from 39°-38° N in 

shallow coastal waters out to 

the 25-m isobath, including the 

mouth of Delaware Bay

Off the coast of southern NJ, 

DE, and MD from 39° to 

38° N in shallow coastal 

waters out to the 25-m 

isobath, including the mouth 

of Delaware Bay

Bonnethead shark

(Sphyrna tiburo) 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries less than 25 m 

deep from Jekyll Island, GA, to 

just north of Cape Canaveral, 

FL

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries less than 25 m 

deep from Cape Fear, NC, to 

West Palm Beach, FL

Shallow coastal waters, 

inlets and estuaries from 

Cape Fear, NC, to Cape 

Canaveral, FL

Atlantic sharpnose shark

(Rhizoprionodon 

terraenovae) 

Shallow coastal areas including 

bays and estuaries out to the 

25-m isobath from Daytona 

Beach, FL north to Cape 

Hatteras, NC

From Daytona Beach, FL, 

north to Cumberland Island, 

GA; Hilton Head Island, SC, 

north to Cape Hatteras, NC, out 

to the 25-m isobath (slightly 

deeper – to the 50-m isobath – 

off NC)

From Cape May, NJ, south 

to the NC/SC border; 

shallow coastal areas north 

of Cape Hatteras, NC, to the 

25-m isobath; south of Cape 

Hatteras between the 

25- and 100-m isobaths; 

offshore St. Augustine, FL, 

to Cape Canaveral, FL, from 

inshore to the 100-m isobath

Blacknose shark

(Carcharhinus 

acronotus) 

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 25 m deep from the 

GA/FL border to 

Cape Canaveral, FL

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 25 m deep from the 

GA/FL border to Cape 

Canaveral, FL

Shallow coastal waters to 

the 25-m isobath from 

St. Augustine, FL south to 

Cape Canaveral, FL

Finetooth shark

(Carcharhinus isodon) 

Shallow coastal waters of SC, 

GA, and FL out to the 25-m 

isobath from 33° to 30° N

Shallow coastal waters of SC, 

GA, and FL out to the 25-m 

isobath from 33° to 30° N

Shallow coastal waters of 

SC, GA, and FL out to the 

25-m isobath from 33° to 

30° N

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2009a. 
Tables-64 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-24 

Large Coastal Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest

Species Neonate/Early Juveniles Late Juveniles/Subadults Adults

Basking shark

(Cetorhinus maximus) Insufficient information

Offshore the mid-Atlantic U.S. 

south of Nantucket Shoals at 

70°W to the northern edge of 

Cape Hatteras, NC, at 35.5° N 

in waters from 50 to 200 m 

deep

Not in AOI

Scalloped hammerhead

(Sphyrna lewini) Not in AOI

Pelagic waters of the U.S. 

Atlantic seaboard from the 

shoreline out to the 200-m 

isobath from 39° N south to the 

Florida Keys

Pelagic waters of the South 

from 36.5° to 33° N between 

the 25 and 200-m isobaths

Great hammerhead

(Sphyrna mokarran) Insufficient information

Off the FL coast, all shallow 

coastal waters out to the 100-m 

isobath from 30° N south 

around peninsular FL to 82.5° 

W, including Florida Bay and 

adjacent waters east of 81.5° W 

(north of 25°N), and east of 

82.5° W

Off the entire east coast of 

FL, all shallow coastal 

waters out to the 100-m 

isobath, south of 30° N, 

including the west coast of 

FL to 85.5° W

Bigeye thresher shark

(Alopias superciliosus) Insufficient information

Offshore NC from 36.5° to 

34°N, between the 200- and 

2,000-m isobaths

Offshore NC from 35.5° to 

35°N, between the 200- and 

2,000-m isobaths

White shark

(Carcharodon 

carcharias) 

Insufficient information

Offshore northern NJ and Long 

Island, NY, in pelagic waters 

from the 25- to 100-m isobaths 

in the New York Bight area, 

bounded to the east at 71.5° W 

and to the south at 39.5° N; 

also, offshore Cape Canaveral, 

FL, between the 25- and 100-m 

isobaths from 29.5° N south to 

28° N

Insufficient information

Nurse shark

(Ginglymostoma 

cirtatum) 

Not in AOI

Shallow coastal waters from 

the shoreline to the 25-m 

isobath off the east coast of FL 

from south of Cumberland 

Island, GA (at 30.5° N)

Shallow coastal waters from 

the shoreline to the 25-m 

isobath off the east coast of 

FL from south of 

Cumberland Island, GA 

(at 30.5° N)

Bignose shark

(Carcharhinus altimus) 

From offshore Delmarva 

Peninsula (38° N) to Bull’s 

Bay, SC (32° N), between the 

100- and 200-m isobaths

From offshore Delmarva 

Peninsula (38° N) to Bull’s 

Bay, SC (32° N), between the 

100- and 500-m isobaths

Insufficient information

Blacktip shark

(Carcharhinus 

limbatus) 

Shallow coastal waters to the 

25-m isobath from Bull’s Bay, 

SC, at 33.5° N, south to Cape 

Canaveral, FL, at 28.5° N 

Shallow coastal waters from 

the shoreline to the 25-m 

isobath from Cape Hatteras, 

NC, at 35.25° N to 29° N at 

Ponce de Leon Inlet, 

St. Augustine, FL

Shallow coastal waters of 

the Outer Banks, NC, from 

the shoreline to the 200-m 

isobath between 36° N and 

34.5° N; shallow coastal 

waters offshore to the 50-m 

isobath from St. Augustine, 

FL (30° N), to offshore Cape 

Canaveral, FL (28.5° N)
Tables Tables-65 

Table 4-24. Large Coastal Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of 

Interest (continued).

Species Neonate/Early Juveniles Late Juveniles/Subadults Adults 

Bull shark

(Carcharhinus leucas) 

In shallow coastal waters, 

inlets, and estuaries in waters 

less than 25 m deep from just 

north of Cape Canaveral, FL, at 

29° N to just south of Cape 

Canaveral, FL, at 28° N

In shallow coastal waters, inlets 

and estuaries in waters less 

than 25 m deep from Savannah 

Beach, GA, at 32°N

Not in AOI

Dusky shark

(Carcharhinus 

obscurus) 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries to the 25-m 

isobath from the eastern end of 

Long Island, NY, at 72° W 

south to Cape Lookout, NC, at 

34.5° N; from Cape Lookout 

south to West Palm Beach, FL 

(27.5° N), shallow coastal 

waters, inlets, and estuaries and 

offshore areas to the 90-m 

isobath

Pelagic waters from VA/NC 

border to Jacksonville, FL, 

between the 25- and 200-m 

isobaths 

Pelagic waters from VA/NC 

border south to 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL, between 

the 25- and 200-m isobaths

Night shark

(Carcharhinus 

signatus) 

Insufficient information

Pelagic waters from offshore 

Assateague Island, MD 

(38° N), south to offshore of 

Cape Fear, NC (33.5° N), from 

the 100- to 2,000-m isobaths

Pelagic waters of the South 

Atlantic Bight from the 

100-m isobath to either the 

2,000-m isobath or 100 mi 

from shore

Sandbar shark

(Carcharhinus 

plumbeus) 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less 

than 25 m deep from Montauk, 

NY, to Cape Canaveral, FL 

(27.5° N)

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less 

than 25 m deep from Montauk, 

NY, to Cape Canaveral, FL 

(27.5° N)

Areas on the east coast of 

the U.S., shallow coastal 

areas from the coast to the 

50-m isobath from 

Nantucket, MA, south to 

Miami, FL

Silky shark

(Carcharhinus 

falciformis) 

Waters off Cape Hatteras, NC, 

between the 100- and 2,000-m 

isobaths, plus shallow coastal 

waters just north and 

immediately west of Cape 

Hatteras; waters off 

St. Augustine, FL, south to off 

Miami in depths of 25-1,000 m 

(likely along the west edge of 

the Gulf Stream)

From offshore Chesapeake 

Bay, MD, south to offshore of 

NC/SC border from the 50- to 

2,000-m isobaths

Insufficient information

Spinner shark

(Carcharhinus 

brevipinna) 

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 25 m deep from Cape 

Hatteras, NC, to around FL

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 200 m deep from GA/FL 

border south to Cape 

Canaveral, FL (28.5° N)

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 100 m deep from 

GA/FL border south to 

Cape Canaveral, FL 

(28.5° N)

Lemon shark

(Negaprion 

brevirostris) 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries out to the 25-m 

isobath from Savannah, GA, at 

32° N, south to Indian River 

Inlet, FL at 29° N

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries offshore to the 

25-m isobath, west of 79.75° W 

from Bull’s Bay, SC, to south 

of Cape Canaveral (West Palm 

Beach), FL, at 28° N

Shallow coastal waters, 

inlets, and estuaries offshore 

to the 25-m isobath from 

Cumberland Island, GA, at 

31° N to St. Augustine, FL, 

at 31° N
Tables-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-24. Large Coastal Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of 

Interest (continued). 

Species Neonate/Early Juveniles Late Juveniles/Subadults Adults 

Tiger shark

(Gaelocerdo cuvier) 

Shallow coastal waters to the 

200-m isobath from Canaveral, 

FL (27.5° N) to Montauk, NY

Around the peninsula of FL to 

the 100-m isobath to the 

FL/GA border; north to Cape 

Lookout, NC, from the 25- to 

100-m isobaths; from Cape 

Lookout north to just south of 

the Chesapeake Bay, MD, from 

inshore to the 100-m isobath

Offshore from Chesapeake 

Bay, MD, south to 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL, to the 

western edge of the Gulf 

Stream

Sand tiger shark

(Carcharias taurus) 

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 25 m deep from Barnegat 

Inlet, NJ, to Cape Canaveral, 

FL (27.5° N)

Insufficient information

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 25 m deep from 

Barnegat Inlet, NJ, to 

Cape Canaveral, FL 

(27.5° N)

Abbreviation: AOI = Area of Interest.

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2009a. 
Tables Tables-67

Table 4-25 

Highly Migratory Fishes and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest

Species Eggs, and Larvae Juveniles/Subadults Adults

Dolphin 

(Coryphaena hippurus) 

Pelagic waters of the Gulf 

Stream including the “Point” 

offshore NC

Pelagic waters of the Gulf 

Stream including the “Point” 

offshore NC

Pelagic waters of the Gulf 

Stream including the “Point” 

offshore NC

Wahoo 

(Acanthocybium solandri) 

Pelagic waters of the Gulf 

Stream including the “Point” 

offshore NC

Pelagic waters of the Gulf 

Stream including the “Point” 

offshore NC

Pelagic waters of the Gulf 

Stream including the “Point” 

offshore NC

Albacore

(Thunnus alalunga) Insufficient information

In pelagic waters with 

temperatures between 15.6 and 

19.4 °C, offshore the U.S. east 

coast in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

from the 50-m isobath to the 

2,000-m isobath from 71° W 

(northeast boundary) to 38° N 

(southwest boundary)

In surface waters with 

temperatures between 

13.5 and 25.2 °C, offshore 

the U.S. eastern seaboard 

between the 100- and 

2,000-m isobaths from 

southeastern Georges Bank at 

41.25° N, south to 36.5° N, 

offshore the VA/NC border; 

also, in the Blake Plateau and 

Spur region, from 79° W east 

to the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) boundary and 

29° N south to the EEZ 

boundary

Bigeye tuna

(Thunnus obesus) Insufficient information

In surface waters from 

southeastern Georges Bank to 

the boundary of the EEZ to 

Cape Hatteras, NC, at 35° N 

from the 200-m isobath to the 

EEZ boundary; also, in the 

Blake Plateau region off Cape 

Canaveral, FL, from 29° N 

south to the EEZ boundary 

(28.25° N) and from 79° W east 

to the EEZ boundary 

(approximately 76.75° W)

In pelagic waters from the 

surface to a depth of 250 m; 

from southeastern Georges 

Bank at the EEZ boundary to 

offshore Delaware Bay at 

38° N, from the 100-m 

isobath to the EEZ boundary; 

from offshore Delaware Bay 

south to Cape Lookout, NC 

(approximately the region off 

Cape Canaveral, FL), from 

29° N south to the EEZ 

boundary (28.25° N), and 

from 79° W east to the EEZ 

boundary (76.75° W)

Bluefin tuna

(Thunnus thynnus) 

In pelagic and near-coastal 

surface waters from the 

NC/SC border at 33.5° N, 

south to Cape Canaveral, FL, 

from 15 mi from shore to the 

200-m isobath; all waters 

from offshore Cape 

Canaveral at 28.25° N

All inshore and pelagic surface 

waters warmer than 12 °C of the 

Gulf of Maine and Cape Cod 

Bay, MA, from Cape Ann, MA 

(~42.75° N), east to 69.75° W 

(including waters of the Great 

South Channel west of 

69.75° W), continuing south to 

and including Nantucket Shoals 

at 70.5° W to off Cape Hatteras, 

NC (approximately 35.5° N)

South of 39° N, from the 

50-m isobath to the 2,000-m 

isobath to offshore Cape 

Lookout, NC, at 34.5°N. In 

pelagic waters from offshore 

Daytona Beach, FL (29.5°N) 

south to Key West (82° W) 

from the 100-m isobath to the 

EEZ boundary
Tables-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-25. Highly Migratory Fishes and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of 

Interest (AOI) (continued).

Species Eggs, and Larvae Juveniles/Subadults Adults

Skipjack tuna

(Katsuwonus pelamis) Not in AOI Not in AOI

In pelagic surface waters 

from 20-31 °C in the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight, from the 

25-m isobath to the 200-m 

isobath from 71° W off the 

coast of Martha’s Vineyard, 

MA, south and west to 

35.5° N, offshore Oregon 

Inlet, NC

Yellowfin tuna

(Thunnus albacares) Not in AOI

Pelagic waters from the surface 

to 100 m deep between 18C and 

31 °C from offshore Cape Cod, 

MA (70° W), southward to 

Jekyll Island, GA (31° N), 

between 200 and 2,000 m

Pelagic waters from the 

surface to 100 m deep 

between 18 and 31 oC from 

offshore Cape Cod, MA 

(70°W), southward to Jekyll 

Island, GA (31°N), between 

200 and 2,000 m

Swordfish

(Xiphias gladius) 

From Cape Hatteras, NC 

(35° N) extending south 

around peninsular FL through 

the Gulf of Mexico to the 

U.S./Mexico border from the 

200-m isobath to the EEZ

Pelagic waters warmer than 

18 °C from the surface to a 

depth of 500 m from 

Manasquan Inlet, NJ, at 40° N, 

east to 73° W, south to GA at 

31.5° N

Pelagic waters warmer than 

13 °C from the surface to 

500 m deep from Cape Cod, 

MA, to Biscayne Bay, FL

Blue marlin

(Makaira nigricans) 

Offshore FL, identical to 

adult EFH in that area: from 

offshore Ponce de Leon Inlet 

(29.5° N) south to offshore 

Melbourne, FL, from the 

100-m isobath to 50 mi 

seaward (79.25° W); from 

offshore Melbourne, FL

Pelagic waters warmer than 

24 °C from offshore Delaware 

Bay (38.5° N) south to Cape 

Lookout, NC, between the 200-

and 2,000-m isobaths

Pelagic waters warmer than 

24 °C from offshore 

Delaware Bay (38.5° N) 

south to Wilmington, NC 

(33.5° N), between 200 and 

2,000 m isobath

White marlin

(Kijikia albida) Insufficient information

Pelagic waters warmer than 

22 °C from offshore Georges 

Bank (41° N) south to Miami, 

FL (25.25° N), between the 

50- and 2,000-m isobaths

Pelagic waters warmer than 

22 °C from offshore the 

northeast U.S. east coast 

from 33.75°to 39.25° N 

between the 50- and 2,000-m 

isobaths

Sailfish

(Istiophorus platypterus) Not in AOI Not in AOI

Pelagic and coastal waters 

between 21 and 28 °C 

offshore of the U.S. southeast 

coast from 5 mi off the coast 

to 200 m water depths from 

36°-34° N, then from 5 mi 

offshore to 125 mi offshore 

or the EEZ boundary, 

whichever is closer to shore

Longbill spearfish

(Tetrapterus pfluegeri) Insufficient information

Offshore NC from 36.5°-35° N 

from the 200-m isobath to the 

EEZ boundary

Offshore of NC from 

37°-31° N, including the 

Charleston Bump

Sources: SAFMC, 2003; USDOC, NMFS, 2009a. 
Tables Tables-69

Table 4-26 

Pelagic Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest

Species Neonate/Early Juveniles Late Juveniles/Subadults Adults

Longfin mako

(Isurus paucus) 

Pelagic waters of the 

northeast U.S. coast from the 

100-m isobath out to the 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) boundary from 

Georges Bank to Cape 

Hatteras (35° N)

Pelagic waters of northeast 

U.S. coast from the 100-m 

isobath out to the EEZ 

boundary from Georges Bank 

to Cape Hatteras (35° N)

Pelagic waters of northeast 

U.S. coast from the 100-m 

isobath out to the EEZ 

boundary from Georges 

Bank to Cape Hatteras 

(35° N)

Shortfin mako

(Isurus oxyrinchus)

Between the 50- and 

2,000-m isobaths from Cape 

Lookout, NC (35° N) north 

to just east of Georges Bank 

(42° N and 66° W) to the 

EEZ boundary; and between 

the 25- and 50-m isobaths 

from the VA/NC border to 

southwest of Georges Bank

Between the 25- and 2,000-m 

isobaths from offshore Onslow 

Bay, NC, north to Cape Cod, 

MA, and extending west 

between 38° and 41.5° N to the 

EEZ boundary

Between the 25- and 

2,000-m isobaths from 

offshore Cape Lookout, NC, 

north to Long Island, NY; 

and extending west between 

38.5° N and 41.5° N to the 

EEZ boundary

Blue shark

(Prionace galauca) Not in AOI

Pelagic waters from offshore 

Cape Hatteras, NC (35° N), 

north to the EEZ boundary off 

Georges Bank, from the 25-m 

isobath to the EEZ

Pelagic waters from offshore

Cape Hatteras, NC (35° N), 

north to the EEZ offshore off 

Georges Bank from the 

25-m isobath to the EEZ

Oceanic whitetip shark

(Carcharhinus 

longimanus) 

In the vicinity of the 

Charleston Bump, from the 

200-m isobath to the 

2,000-m isobath, between 

32.5° and 31° N

Offshore the southeast 

U.S. coast from 32°-26° N, 

from the 200-m isobath to the 

EEZ boundary, or 75° W, 

whichever is nearer

Pelagic waters offshore the 

U.S. east coast from the 

200-m isobath out to the 

EEZ boundary, from 36° to 

30° N

Thresher shark

(Alopias vulpinus) 

Offshore Long Island, NY, 

and southern New England 

in the northeastern U.S., in 

pelagic waters deeper than 

50 m, between 70° and 

73.5° W, south to 40° N

Offshore Long Island, NY, and 

southern New England in the 

northeastern U.S., in pelagic 

waters deeper than 50 m, 

between 70° and 73.5° W, 

south to 40° N

Offshore Long Island, NY, 

and southern New England 

in the northeastern U.S., in 

pelagic waters deeper than 

50 m, between 70° and 

73.5° W, south to 40° N

Bigeye thresher shark

(Alopias superciliosus) Insufficient information

Offshore NC from 36.5° to 

34° N, between the 200- and 

2,000-m isobaths

Offshore NC from 35.5° to 

35° N, between the 200- and 

2,000-m isobaths

Source: USDOC, NMFS (2009a).
Tables-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-27 

Summary of Marine Fish Hearing Sensitivity

Family Common Name 

of Taxa

Highest 

Frequency 

Detected (Hz)1

Hearing 

Category2 Reference Notes

Asceripensidae Sturgeon 800 2 Lovell et al., 2005; Meyer 

et al., 2010 

Several different species 

tested. Relatively poor 

sensitivity

Anguillidae Eels 300 2 Jerkø et al., 1989 Poor sensitivity

Batrachoididae Toadfishes 400 2 

Fish and Offutt, 1972; 

Vasconcelos and Ladich, 

2008

-- 

Clupeidae 

Shad, menhden >120,000 4 Mann et al., 1997, 2001 Ultrasound detecting, but 

sensitivity relatively poor

Anchovy, 

sardines, 

herrings

4,000 4 Mann et al., 2001 Not detect ultrasound, and 

relativley poor sensitivitiy

Chondrichthyes 

[Class] 

Rays, sharks, 

skates 1,000 1 Casper et al., 2003 Low frequency hearing, not very sensitive to sound

Gadidae 

Atlantic cod, 

haddock, 

pollack, hake

500 2 

Chapman and Hawkins, 

1973; Sand and Karlsen, 

1986

Probably detect infrasound 

(below 40 Hz). Best 

hearing 100-300 Hz

Grenadiers -- 3? Deng et al., 2011

Deep sea, highly 

specialized ear structures 

suggesting good hearing, 

but no measures of hearing

Gobidae Gobies 400 1 or 2 Lu and Xu, 2009 --

Labridae Wrasses 1,300 2 Tavolga and Wodinksy, 

1963 -- 

Lutjanidae Snappers 1,000 2 Tavolga and Wodinksy, 

1963 -- 

Malacanthidae Tilefish 2 -- No data

Moronidae Striped bass 1,000 2 Ramcharitar unpublished --

Pomacentridae Damselfish 1,500 – 2,000 2 Myrberg and Spires, 1980 --

Pomadasyidae Grunts 1,000 2 Tavolga and Wodinsky, 

1963 -- 

Polyprionidae Wreckfish -- 2 -- No data

Sciaenidae

Drums, 

weakfish, 

croakers

1,000 2 Ramcharitar et al., 2006 Hear poorly

Silver perch 3,000 3 Ramcharitar et al., 2004, 

2006 -- 

Serranidae Groupers -- 2 -- No data

Scombridae 

Yellowfin tuna 1,100 2 Iversen, 1967 With swim bladder

Tuna 1,000 1 Iversen, 1969 Without swim bladder

Bluefin tuna 1,000 2 Song et al., 2006 Based only on ear anatomy

Notes: See text for important caveats.

 For taxa shaded gray, hearing capabilities can only be surmised from morphological data. 1 Lower frequency of hearing is not given since, in most studies, the lower end of the hearing bandwidth is more a function 

of the equipment used than determination of actual lowest hearing threshold. In all cases, fish hear below 100 Hz, and 

there are some species studied, such as Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, and plaice, where fish have been shown to detect 

infrasound, or sounds below 40 Hz. 2 See Chapter 4.2.5.1.4 for an explanation. 

Source: Appendix J (data compiled from Fay [1988] and Nedwell et al. [2004]). 
Tables Tables-71

Table 4-28 

Commercial Landings within the Area of Interest during 2008-2012

State Commercial Landings (metric tons)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Virginia 191,901 193,594 231,549 224,100 209,536

North Carolina 32,300 31,281 32,656 30,612 33,301

Maryland 28,819 30,309 46,683 35,179 25,707

Florida (East Coast) 11,933 12,474 13,478 13,787 12,957

South Carolina 4,563 4,253 4,793 5,503 5,542

Georgia 4,063 3,337 3,273 5,804 4,674

Delaware 2,135 2,273 2,365 2,232 2,377

Total 275,713 277,521 334,797 317,215 294,094

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2013a. 

Table 4-29 

Important Commercial Species for Each State

Occurring within the Area of Interest during 2006-2009

State Commercial Species

Delaware Sea scallop, quahog clam, and striped bass. Other important commercial species 

included unclassified finfish and black sea bass.

Maryland Quahog clam, sea scallop, menhaden, and striped bass. Other important commercial 

species were cownose ray, spiny dogfish, and horseshoe crab.

Virginia Sea scallop, menhaden, and summer flounder. Other important commercial species 

were quahog clam, Atlantic croaker, and striped bass.

North Carolina White shrimp, southern flounder, and summer flounder. Other important commercial 

species were brown shrimp, Atlantic croaker, and quahog clam.

South Carolina White shrimp, gag grouper, and scamp. Other important commercial species were

swordfish, brown shrimp, and vermilion snapper.

Georgia White shrimp, other shrimp (Dendrobranchiata), and finfish (unclassified). Other 

important species were quahog clam, brown shrimp, and shellfish (unclassified).

Florida (East Coast) White shrimp, king mackerel, and rock shrimp. Other important commercial species 

were brown shrimp, swordfish, and Spanish mackerel.

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2011k.
Tables-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-30

Commercial Fishing Landings and Value for Each State within the Area of Interest during 2012

State

Distance from Shore

Landings 0-4.8 km Landings 4.8-322 km Landings >322 km

Thousands 

of kg

Thousands 

of Dollars

Thousands 

of kg

Thousands 

of Dollars

Thousands 

of kg

Thousands 

of Dollars

Delaware 1,923 6,192 214 774 -- --

Maryland 35,498 83,468 8,748 12,472 -- --

Virginia 152,953 56,396 71,306 142,409 -- --

North Carolina 24,463 57,710 8,161 22,234 -- --

South Carolina 1,989 6,731 2,757 14,263 -- --

Georgia 1,639 5,336 1,692 8,074 -- --

Florida (East Coast) 6,166 20,598 7,089 29,760 -- --

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2013a (The NMFS indicates that these are preliminary annual landings and are 

subject to change; the numbers differ somewhat from the annual State totals reported in Table 4-23.).
Tables Tables-73

Table 4-31 

Seasonal and/or Area Closures to Commercial Fishing in Federal Waters Offshore

the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic States

Closed or Restricted Area Location Season Gear Restrictions or 

Protection Measures Reason/Purpose 

Deepwater MPAs: 

Snowy Grouper Wreck; 

Northern South Carolina; 

Edisto; Charleston Deep 

Artificial Reef; Georgia; 

and North Florida

Cape Fear, NC to 

Jacksonville, FL (two 

others offshore south FL 

are outside the Area of 

Interest)

Year-round No bottom longline 

gear

Protect 

snapper-grouper 

complex species

Proposed deepwater 

Lophelia coral HAPCs: 

Cape Lookout, Cape 

Fear, Blake Ridge Diapir, 

and Stetson-Miami 

Terrace

South Atlantic Bight Year-round 

No anchors or 

chains; bottom 

longline, trawl 

(mid-water and 

bottom), dredge, pot, 

or trap gear 

prohibited

Protect deepwater 

corals

Oculina Bank HAPC and 

Experimental Closed 

Area

Offshore FL Year-round 

In HAPC, no bottom 

longline, bottom 

trawl, dredge, or 

trap/pot gear; in 

experimental closed 

area, no fishing for 

snapper-grouper 

species

Protect deepwater 

corals; protect 

snapper-grouper 

complex species

SMZs (51 sites) Offshore SC, GA, and 

FL Year-round 

Restrictions vary; 

examples include 

prohibitions on 

powerhead, bottom 

longline, fish traps 

or pots, and 

hydraulic or electric 

reels

Protect 

snapper-grouper 

complex species

Allowable octocoral 

closed area

Atlantic EEZ north of 

28°35.1’ N Year-round 

No harvest or 

possession of 

octocoral

Protect deepwater 

corals

Pelagic Sargassum area

All EEZ waters south of 

34° N and waters within 

100 nmi of the coast 

from 34° N to the 

NC/SC border

July 1-October 31

All Sargassum

harvest prohibited in 

the closed area; 

elsewhere prohibited 

July-October, with 

catch limits and 

restrictions on mesh 

and frame size of 

nets

Protect Sargassum as 

habitat for sea turtles 

and essential fish 

habitat for snappers, 

groupers, and coastal 

migratory pelagic 

fishes

Longline closed areas

All waters south of 

27°10’ N, and waters 

north of 27°10’ N where 

depth is <91 m (300 ft)

Year-round No longline gear for 

snapper-grouper 

Protect 

snapper-grouper 

complex species

Charleston Bump Area Offshore NC and SC 

and Jekyll Island, GA February 1-April 30 No pelagic or bottom 

longline gear

Protect juvenile 

swordfish and reduce 

bycatch
Tables-74 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-31. Seasonal and/or Area Closures to Commercial Fishing in Federal Waters Offshore

the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic States (continued).

Closed or Restricted Area Location Season Gear Restrictions or 

Protection Measures Reason/Purpose 

Cape Hatteras Special 

Research Area

350 N Lat, 750W Long, 

360 25’ N Lat, 74035’ W 

Long.

Year-round

Pelagic longline gear 

must be < 20 nm

(37.04 km)

Pelagic longline take 

reduction of Risso’s 

dolphin and short-finned 

pilot whales

East Florida Coast Area

Offshore Jekyll Island, 

GA; FL east coast; Key 

West, FL

Year-round No pelagic or bottom 

longline gear

Protect juvenile 

swordfish and billfishes

Mid-Atlantic Shark Area Offshore Oregon Inlet, 

NC and Cape Fear, NC January 1-July 31

No bottom longline 

and shark gillnet 

gear

Protect juvenile sharks 

and prohibited sharks

Carl N. Schuster Jr. 

Horseshoe Crab Reserve

Offshore DE, MD, and 

VA Year-round 

No trawl nets, pound 

nets, gillnets, or fyke 

nets

Protect horseshoe crab 

spawning population 

and maintain crab eggs 

for migratory 

shorebirds

South Atlantic shrimp 

cold weather closure

Offshore NC, SC, GA, 

and FL

In winter during 

severe cold weather, 

when adjacent South 

Atlantic states close 

all or part of their 

waters to shrimp 

trawling

No trawling for 

brown, pink, or 

white shrimps

Protect shrimp 

populations depleted by 

severe cold weather

Golden crab trap closed 

areas

Southeastern U.S. 

(divided into Northern, 

Middle, and Southern 

zones)

Year-round 

Vessel size 

restrictions; permits 

limit a vessel to a 

particular zone

Protect golden crab 

from overfishing

Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Plan

Entire U.S. east coast 

(divided into several 

subareas)

September 1-May 31 

from 32° N to 

northern edge of 

Area of Interest;

November 15-

April 15 from 

29°-32° N;

December 1-March 

31 from 29° N to 

southern edge of 

Area of Interest

Restrictions on 

trap/pot and gillnet 

use

Protect large whales 

from entanglement

Abbreviations: EEZ = Economic Exclusion Zone; HAPCs = Habitat Areas of Particular Concern; MPA = 

Marine Protected Areas; SMZs = Special Management Zones.

Adapted from USDOC, NMFS, 2010d; 50 CFR § 622.35. 
Tables Tables-75

Table 4-32 

Partial List of Recreational Fishing Tournaments within the Area of Interest

State Fishing Tournament Tournament Dates

Delaware

Delaware Sport Fishing Tournament

Annual Delaware Black Drum Tournament

Annual Summer Flounder Tournament

Annual Rocktober Fishing Tournament and Festival 

Turkey Week Striper Tournament

1 January – 31 December

22 April – 1 June

1 June – 1 September

19-21 October

20-26 November 

Maryland 

Annual Opening Day Rockfish Tournament

Flounder Frenzy

Mako Mania Tournament

World’s Largest Fishing Tournament: Maryland Fishing 

Challenge (1 Year Challenge)

Harbor Tackle Annual Red Drum Tournament

Annual Surf Fishing Tournament

Harbor Tackle Annual Assateague Striper Tournament

16 April

18-19 May

3-5 June

7 September – 6 September 

23-25 September

20-22 October

19-20 November

Virginia

Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament

Virginia Beach Rockfish Frostbite Challenge 

Triple Threat Tournament

Croaker Fishing Tournament

Virginia Beach Tuna Tournament 

The Annual Colonial Beach Rockfish Tournament 

1 January − 31 December

15-18 January

14 April – 30 August

4 June

11-14 July 

31 October – 2 November

North Carolina

Annual Hatteras Village Offshore Open

Guiseppe Giaimo Scholarship Tournament 

Big Rock Blue Marlin 

Cape Fear Blue Marlin Fishing Tournament

Bay Creek Classic 

U.S. Open King Mackerel Tournament

The Wahoo Challenge

Annual Davis Island Fishing Foundation Surf Fishing Tournament

Manteo Rotary Rockfish Rodeo

12-15 May

17 May

10-18 June

1-4 July

September 26 

30 September – 2 October

13-16 October 

14-16 October

3-4 December

South Carolina

Charleston Trident Fishing Tournament

Bohicket Marina Invitational Billfish Tournament

Annual Spring King Mackerel Tournament

Carolina Billfish Classic

Annual Fall King Mackerel Tournament

Charleston Trident Fishing Tournament 

1 January

11-14 May

11-12 June

22-25 May

16-18 September

1 December

Georgia

Annual King Mackerel Tournament

Blue Water Tournament

Kingfish/General Tournament

General Tournament

General Tournament

13-16 May

17-20 June

7 August

18 September

16 October

Florida

Jacksonville Offshore Sport Fishing Club’s Tournament

IFA Redfish Tour

The Halifax Sport Fishing Club’s Annual Offshore Challenge

Metro PCS Saltwater Classic

Invitational Bluewater Tournament

Fountain Mercury Kingbuster

AT&T Greater Jacksonville Kingfish Tournament and Festival

El Pescado Billfish Tournament

The Halifax Sport Fishing Club’s Surf Fishing Tournament

26 February

5-6 March

8-10 April

6-7 May

16-21 May

10-13 June

22-24 July

30 September – 2 October

13 November

Sources: Caught the Skunk.com, 2011; Florida Sportsman, 2011; World Fishing Network, 2011.
Tables-76 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-33 

Selected Parks, Seashores, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges

along the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts

State Recreational Area

Delaware

Cape Henlopen State Park

Delaware Seashore State Park

Fenwick Island State Park

Maryland Assateague State Park

Assateague Island National Seashore

Virginia

Assateague Island National Seashore

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge

Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge

Seashore State Park

False Cape State Park

North Carolina

Wright Brothers National Memorial Park

Cape Hatteras National Seashore

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Fort Macon State Park

Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area

Hammocks Beach State Park

Jockey’s Ridge State Park

Bald Head Island State Natural Area 

Theodore Roosevelt State Natural Area

Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve

Freeman Park

Fort Fisher State Recreation Area

South Carolina

Myrtle Beach State Park

Huntingdon Beach State Park

Baruch-North Island Preserve

Edisto Beach State Park

Hunting Island State Park

Cape Roman National Wildlife Refuge

Georgia

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge

Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge

Jekyll Island State Park

Cumberland Island National Seashore

Florida

Fort Clinch State Park

Amelia Island State Park

Little Talbot Island State Park

Anastasia State Park

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park

Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation Area

North Peninsula State Park

Canaveral National Seashore

Jetty Park
Tables Tables-77

Table 4-34 

Types of Recreational Activities by Location in the Area of Interest 

and along the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Coasts

Location Recreational Activities

Offshore waters

(depths >30 m)

Fishing

Diving (very limited – e.g., Monitor National Marine Sanctuary)

Wildlife viewing (e.g., whale watching, pelagic birdwatching)

Nearshore waters 

(depths <30 m)

Fishing

Boating

Diving (artificial reefs and wrecks; Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary)

Wildlife viewing (e.g., whale watching, pelagic birdwatching)

Beaches

Swimming, snorkeling, surfing, etc.

Sunbathing

Fishing

Boating

Wildlife viewing

Camping (e.g., state parks and national seashores)

Lagoons and embayments

Swimming

Fishing

Boating

Wildlife viewing

Camping 

Other coastal areas

Sightseeing

Golf

Bicycling

Hiking

Hunting
Tables-78 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-35 

Economic Contribution of Marine-Based Tourism and Recreation to State Economies in 2008 

State Employment Wages

Marine Based Tourism and Recreation Sectors1

Delaware 16,005 $255,005,731

Maryland 62,283 $1,151,947,179

Virginia 65,326 $966,827,868

North Carolina 32,579 $452,044,108

South Carolina 59,198 $1,039,605,298

Georgia 15,430 $263,861,410

Florida 333,904 $6,978,294,497

Share of State Economy2

Delaware 3.78% 1.27%

Maryland 2.45% 0.92%

Virginia 1.78% 0.56%

North Carolina 0.81% 0.28%

South Carolina 3.16% 1.53%

Georgia 0.38% 0.15%

Florida 4.36% 2.24%

1 National Ocean Economics Program, 2008. 2 Total employment and wages for States from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008 

(http://www.bls.gov/cew/#databases). 

Table 4-36 

Economic Contribution of Leisure and Hospitality to Coastal Economies1 in 2008

State Employment Wages

Leisure and Hospitality

Delaware 40,869 $758,460,245

Maryland 125,220 $2,465,284,222

Virginia 116,989 $2,038,305,323

North Carolina 43,518 $600,529,156

South Carolina 83,648 $1,454,839,518

Georgia 32,196 $531,105,248

Florida 661,930 $14,042,229,011

Share of Coastal County Economy

Delaware 9.90% 3.86%

Maryland 9.98% 4.17%

Virginia 10.56% 3.81%

North Carolina 14.58% 6.31%

South Carolina 19.31% 9.83%

Georgia 14.92% 6.66%

Florida 11.81% 6.10%

1 Economies of shoreline adjacent counties.

Source: National Ocean Economics Program, 2008.
Tables Tables-79

Table 4-37 

Summary of Federal, Partnership, Federal Fishery Management, and State Designated Marine Protected Areas Listed 

in the National System of Marine Protected Areas

Site State Managing 

Agency

Type of 

Site1 Protection Focus2 Primary Conservation Focus

Fishing 

Restrictions3 

Area

(km2)

NEARSHORE/OFFSHORE SITES

National Marine Sanctuaries

NOAA’s Monitor National Marine Sanctuary NC ONMS NMS Focal Resource Cultural Heritage A 2.21

NOAA’s Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary GA ONMS NMS Ecosystem Natural Heritage A 57.42

Deepwater Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA NC NMFS MPA Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 501.30

Northern South Carolina MPA SC NMFS MPA Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 177.89

Edisto MPA SC NMFS MPA Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 200.08

Charleston Deep Reef MPA SC NMFS MPA Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 69.54

Georgia MPA GA NMFS MPA Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 264.91

North Florida MPA FL NMFS MPA Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 356.62

Other Federal Fishery Management Areas

Waters off New Jersey Closure DE NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Natural Heritage H 34,826.90

Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Closed Area DE/MD NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 5,387.01

Carl N. Shuster, Jr. Horseshoe Crab Reserve DE/MD NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Sustainable Production C 4,135.64

Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area DE/MD/VA NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Natural Heritage H 280,599.00

Offshore Trap/Pot Waters DE/MD/VA/NC NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Natural Heritage H 336,101.00

Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters DE/MD/VA/NC NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Natural Heritage H 74,209.40

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Waters Area DE/MD/VA/NC NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Natural Heritage H 228,708.00

Southern Mid-Atlantic Waters Closure Area DE/MD/VA/NC NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Natural Heritage H 171,705.00

Mid-Atlantic Shark Area NC NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 18,748.50

Flynet Closure NC NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Sustainable Production C 15,689.70

Charleston Bump Closed Area NC/SC/GA NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 125,760.00

Southeast U.S. Restricted Area GA/FL NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Natural Heritage H 64,498.40

Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern FL NMFS HAPC Ecosystem Sustainable Production C 1,054.18

East Florida Coast Closed Area FL NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 103,669.00

Cape Hatteras Special Research Area NC NMFS FFMZ Focal Resource Sustainable Production H 5,927
Tables-80 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-37. Summary of Federal, Partnership, Federal Fishery Management, and State Designated Marine Protected Areas Listed in the National System of

Marine Protected Areas (continued). 

Site State Managing 

Agency

Type of 

Site1 Protection Focus2 Primary Conservation Focus

Fishing 

Restrictions3 

Area

(km2)

COASTAL SITES

National Park System

Assateague Island National Seashore VA NPS NS Ecosystem Natural Heritage C 197.54

Cape Hatteras National Seashore NC NPS NS Ecosystem Natural Heritage C 126.10

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC NPS NS Ecosystem Natural Heritage C 113.35

Cumberland Island National Seashore GA NPS NS Ecosystem Natural Heritage C 147.90

Canaveral National Seashore FL NPS NS Ecosystem Natural Heritage C 237.43

National Wildlife Refuges

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge VA FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage D 73.52

Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge VA FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage E 8.83

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge VA FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage D 65.90

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge NC FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage E 81.04

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge NC FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage D 18.85

Cape Roman National Wildlife Refuge SC FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 268.17

Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge GA FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage A 32.73

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge GA FWS NWR Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 40.68

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge FL FWS NWR Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 562.10

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge FL FWS NWR Focal Resource Natural Heritage F 3.64

National Estuarine Research Reserves

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine 

Research Reserve FL FDEP/ NOAA NERR Ecosystem Natural Heritage F 313.35 

State Designated MPAs

Cape Henlopen State Park DE DDNREC SP Ecosystem Natural Heritage G 21.76

Blue Crab Sanctuary VA VMRC Sanctuary Focal Resource Sustainable Production A 2,448.33

Wreck Island Natural Area Preserve VA VDCR NA Ecosystem Natural Heritage D 2.90

Sea Turtle Sanctuary NC NCDENR Sanctuary Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 24.15

Oregon Inlet Crab Spawning Sanctuary NC NCDENR Sanctuary Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 24.79

Hatteras Inlet Crab Spawning Sanctuary NC NCDENR Sanctuary Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 18.58

Ocracoke Inlet Crab Spawning Sanctuary NC NCDENR Sanctuary Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 38.45

Drum Inlet Crab Spawning Sanctuary NC NCDENR Sanctuary Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 20.99

Bardens Inlet Crab Spawning Sanctuary NC NCDENR Sanctuary Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 20.11

Fort Macon State Park NC NCDENR SP Ecosystem Cultural Heritage F 2.18

Fort Macon State Park Dedicated Nature Preserve NC NCDENR DNP Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 1.94
Tables Tables-81

Table 4-37. Summary of Federal, Partnership, Federal Fishery Management, and State Designated Marine Protected Areas Listed in the National System of

Marine Protected Areas (continued). 

Site State Managing 

Agency

Type of 

Site1 Protection Focus2 Primary Conservation Focus

Fishing 

Restrictions3 

Area

(km2)

Masonboro Island Estuarine Reserve Dedicated 

Nature Preserve NC NCDENR DNP Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 22.37 

Currituck Banks Estuarine Reserve Dedicated 

Nature Preserve NC NCDENR DNP Ecosystem Natural Heritage A 1.40 

Currituck Outer Banks Preserve Dedicated 

Nature Preserve NC NCDENR DNP Ecosystem Natural Heritage A 0.26 

Zekes Island Estuarine Reserve Dedicated Nature 

Preserve NC NCDENR DNP Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 9.47 

Neuse-Southeast Pamlico Sound Area 

Outstanding Resource Water NC NCDENR ORW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 174.43 

Core Sound, Neuse River Basin Outstanding 

Resource Water NC NCDENR ORW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 106.67 

Topsail Sound and Middle Sound Area 

Outstanding Resource Water NC NCDENR ORW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 21.47 

Pamlico Sound Mechanical Harvesting of Oysters 

Prohibited Area NC NCDENR PA Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 692.74 

Trawl Nets Prohibited Areas NC NCDENR PAs Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 819.56

Core Sound Mechanical Harvesting of Oysters 

Prohibited Area NC NCDENR PA Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 265.28 

South of Onslow County Mechanical Harvesting 

of Oysters Prohibited Area NC NCDENR PA Focal Resource Natural Heritage C 143.26 

Queen Anne's Revenge NC NCDCR Historic 

Site Focal Resource Cultural Heritage D 0.24 

USS Huron Historic Shipwreck Preserve NC NCDCR Historic 

Site Focal Resource Cultural Heritage D 0.03 

False Cape State Park SC SCDCR SP Ecosystem Natural Heritage A 15.68

Tom Yawkee Wildlife Center SC SCDNR Wildlife 

Center Focal Resource Natural Heritage B 80.26 

Pelican Spit Natural Area GA GDNR NA Ecosystem Natural Heritage A 0.58

St. Catherines Bar Natural Area GA GDNR NA Ecosystem Natural Heritage E 1.15

Egg Island Bar Natural Area GA GDNR NA Ecosystem Natural Heritage E 0.92

Ossabaw Island Wildlife Management Area GA GDNR WMA Ecosystem Natural Heritage A 114.46

Big Talbot Island State Park FL FDEP SP Ecosystem Natural Heritage C 6.95

Anastasia State Park FL FDEP SP Ecosystem Natural Heritage C 6.53

Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve FL FDEP AP Ecosystem Cultural Heritage B 30.58

Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve FL FDEP AP Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 166.18
Tables-82 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-37. Summary of Federal, Partnership, Federal Fishery Management, and State Designated Marine Protected Areas Listed in the National System of

Marine Protected Areas (continued). 

Site State Managing 

Agency

Type of 

Site1 Protection Focus2 Primary Conservation Focus

Fishing 

Restrictions3 

Area

(km2)

Nassau River - St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic 

Preserve FL FDEP AP Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 286.16 

Anastasia State Park Outstanding Florida Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 6.80

Big Talbot Island State Park Outstanding Florida 

Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 7.29 

Canaveral National Seashore Outstanding Florida 

Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 238.66 

Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve 

Outstanding Florida Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 30.58 

Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

Outstanding Florida Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 120.13 

Little Talbot Island State Park Outstanding 

Florida Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 7.74 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Outstanding Florida Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 490.90 

Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic 

Preserve Outstanding Florida Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 286.03 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve 

Outstanding Florida Water FL FDEP OFW Ecosystem Natural Heritage B 148.76 

Abbreviations: DDNREC = Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control; FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 

FFMZ = Federal Fishery Management Zone; FT/ESPA = Federal Threatened/Endangered Species Protected Area; GDNR = Georgia Department of Natural Resources; 

NA = Natural Area; NCDCR = North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources; NCDENR = North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; 

NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve; NM = National Monument; NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; NMS = National Marine Sanctuary; 

NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NP = National Park; NPS = National Park Service; NS = National Seashore; NWR = National Wildlife 

Refuge; SCDNR = South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; SFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; USDOI = U.S. Department of the Interior; 

VDCR = Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; VMRC =Virginia Marine Resource Commission. 1 Type of Site: AP = Aquatic Preserve; DNP = Dedicated Nature Preserve; FFMZ = Federal Fishery Management Areas; MPA = Marine Protected Area; NA = Natural 

Area; NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve; NMS = National Marine Sanctuary; NS = National Seashore; NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; OFW = Outstanding 

Florida Water; ORW = Outstanding Resource Water; PA = Prohibited Areas; SP = State Park; WMA = Wildlife Management Area. 2 Protection Focus:

Ecosystem: MPAs or zones whose legal authorities and management measures are intended to protect all of the components and processes of the ecosystem within its 

boundaries. Examples: Ecosystem-scale MPAs include most marine sanctuaries, national parks and national monuments. 

Focal Resource: MPAs or zones whose legal authorities and management measures specifically target a particular habitat, species complex, or single resource 

(either natural or cultural). Examples: Focal-resource MPAs include many fisheries and cultural resource sites, including some national wildlife refuges and marine 

sanctuaries. 3 Fishing Restrictions: A = Restrictions Unknown; B = No Site Restrictions; C = Commercial and Recreational Fishing Restricted; D = Commercial Fishing Prohibited and 

Recreational Fishing Restricted; E = Commercial and Recreational Fishing Prohibited; F = Commercial Fishing Prohibited; G = Recreational Fishing Restricted; 

H = Commercial Fishing Restricted.

Source: USDOC, NOAA, National Marine Protected Areas Center (http://www.mpa.gov). 
Tables Tables-83

Table 4-38 

Population of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated with Five Atlantic Coast Ports in 2000 and 2010

Port Metropolitan Statistical Area Population 

2000

Population 

2010

Growth 

(%)

Virginia Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News 1,569,541 1,671,683 6.51

Wilmington Wilmington 233,450 362,315 55.20

Charleston Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville 549,033 664,607 21.05

Savannah Savannah 293,000 347,611 18.64

Jacksonville Jacksonville 1,100,491 1,345,596 22.27

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Table 4-39 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated 

with Five Atlantic Coast Ports in 2010

Port Metropolitan Statistical Area GDP 

($ millions)

GDP per 

Capita ($)1

Real GDP per 

Capita Growth, 

2001-20102 

(%)

Virginia Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News 79,600 47,617 12.02

Wilmington Wilmington 13,170 36,350 -13.40

Charleston Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville 26,691 40,161 2.64

Savannah Savannah 12,921 37,171 -1.65

Jacksonville Jacksonville 58,303 43,329 1.44

1 Calculated by dividing GDP by the 2010 population shown in Table 4-38. 2 In 2005 dollars.

Source: USDOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2011.

Table 4-40

Labor Force and Unemployment in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated 

with Five Atlantic Coast Ports in January 2011

Port Metropolitan Statistical Area Labor Force 

(thousands)

Unemployment 

Rate

(%)

Unemployed 

(thousands)

Virginia Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News 813.5 7.6 61.8

Wilmington Wilmington 172.3 10.6 18.3

Charleston Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville 317.9 8.3 26.3

Savannah Savannah 174.7 9.2 16.1

Jacksonville Jacksonville 679.9 11.5 78.4

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011.
Tables-84 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-41 

Minority Presence in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated with Five Atlantic Coast Ports in 2010, Compared with State and National Averages

Location Total 

Population 

Percent of Total Population

White

Black or 

African 

American

Alaska Native 

or American 

Indian 

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific 

Islander

Some Other 

Race Alone

Two or More 

Races

Hispanic or 

Latino1

Total 

Minority 

Population2

United States 308,745,538 72.41 12.61 0.95 4.75 0.17 6.19 2.92 16.35 36.25 

Virginia (statewide) 8,001,024 68.58 19.39 0.37 5.50 0.07 3.18 2.92 7.90 35.18 

Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC 

MSA

1,671,683 59.65 31.25 0.41 3.47 0.12 1.67 3.43 5.36 42.82 

North Carolina (statewide) 9,535,483 68.47 21.48 1.28 2.19 0.07 4.34 2.16 8.39 34.73 

Wilmington, NC MSA 362,315 79.83 14.21 0.57 0.88 0.05 2.55 1.91 5.37 22.44 

South Carolina (statewide) 4,625,364 66.16 27.90 0.42 1.28 0.06 2.45 1.73 5.10 35.95 

Charleston-North 

Charleston-Summerville, SC 

MSA

664,607 65.57 27.69 0.46 1.63 0.09 2.47 2.09 5.37 36.77 

Georgia (statewide) 9,687,653 59.74 30.46 0.33 3.25 0.07 4.01 2.14 8.81 44.12 

Savannah, GA MSA 347,611 59.68 33.87 0.27 2.08 0.09 1.88 2.14 4.95 42.68 

Florida (statewide) 18,801,310 75.04 15.96 0.38 2.42 0.07 3.62 2.51 22.47 42.11

Jacksonville, FL MSA 1,345,596 69.89 21.77 0.39 3.43 0.09 1.82 2.62 6.90 34.23 

1 Individuals who identify themselves as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish might be of any race; the sum of the other percentages under the “Percent of Total Population” 

columns plus the “Hispanic or Latino” column therefore does not equal 100 percent. 2 The total minority population, for the purposes of this analysis, is the total population minus the non-Latino/Spanish/Hispanic white population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. 
Tables Tables-85

Table 4-42 

Low-Income Presence in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Associated with Five Atlantic Coast Ports in 2009, 

Compared with State and National Averages

Location Total 

Population1

Low-Income 

Population

Share

(%)

United States 299,026,555 42,868,163 14.34

Virginia (statewide) 7,623,736 802,578 10.53

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA 1,621,837 167,507 10.33

North Carolina (statewide) 9,095,948 1,478,214 16.25

Wilmington, NC MSA 346,425 56,481 16.30

South Carolina (statewide) 4,416,859 753,739 17.07

Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC MSA 642,921 100,217 15.59

Georgia (statewide) 9,535,714 1,574,649 16.51

Savannah, GA MSA 334,330 47,805 14.30

Florida (statewide) 18,124,789 2,707,925 14.94

Jacksonville, FL MSA 1,305,970 176,188 13.49

1 Population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009.
Tables-86 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 4-43 

Minority Presence in Fishing Communities in 2000 in States Adjacent to the Area of Interest

Location Total 

Population

Percent of Total Population

White

Black or 

African 

American

Alaska Native 

or American 

Indian

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific 

Islander

Some Other 

Race Alone

Two or More 

Races

Hispanic

or Latino1

Delaware (statewide) 783,600 74.6 19.2 0.3 2.1 0.0 2.0 1.7 4.8

DE Fishing Communities 13,008 86.9 9.2 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.3 1.5 0.7

Maryland (statewide) 5,296,486 64.0 27.9 0.3 4.0 0.0 1.8 2.0 4.3

MD Fishing Communities 38,556 79.1 18.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.3

Virginia (statewide) 7,078,515 72.3 19.6 0.3 3.7 0.1 2.0 2.0 4.7

VA Fishing Communities 972,008 74.5 21.3 0.3 1.3 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.9

North Carolina (statewide) 8,049,313 72.1 21.6 1.2 1.4 0.0 2.3 1.3 4.7

NC Fishing Communities 21,930 79.5 17.3 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.3 1.0 2.2

South Carolina (statewide) 4,012,012 67.2 29.5 0.3 0.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.4

SC Fishing Communities 207,762 62.9 30.6 4.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 1.0 1.8

Georgia (statewide) 8,186,453 65.1 28.7 0.3 2.1 0.1 2.4 1.4 5.3

GA Fishing Communities 172,358 68.8 28.6 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.0

Florida (statewide) 15,982,378 78.0 14.6 0.3 1.7 0.1 3.0 2.4 16.8

FL Fishing Communities 1,331,618 78.9 15.5 0.3 1.3 0.1 1.9 2.1 2.2

1 Individuals who identify themselves as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish might be of any race; the sum of the other percentages under the “Percent of Total 

Population” columns plus the “Hispanic or Latino” column therefore does not equal 100 percent. 

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2009c. 
Tables

Tables-87

Table 4-44 

Low-Income Presence in Fishing Communities in States Adjacent to the Area of Interest in 2000

Location Percent of Family Households

Below Poverty Level

Delaware (statewide) 6.5

Delaware Fishing Communities 1.7–10.6

Maryland (statewide) 6.1

Maryland Fishing Communities 1.9–30.5

Virginia (statewide) 7.0

Virginia Fishing Communities 1.1–17.1

North Carolina (statewide) 9.0

North Carolina Fishing Communities 0.0–27.9

South Carolina (statewide) 10.7

South Carolina Fishing Communities 3.2–19.9

Georgia (statewide) 9.9

Georgia Fishing Communities 0.0–25.2

Florida (statewide) 9.0

Florida Fishing Communities 2.3–25.4

Note: Poverty rates vary considerably among fishing communities identified in each state. The ranges shown indicate the lowest and highest poverty rates 

among the identified fishing communities in each state.

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2009c. 
Tables-88 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 5-1 

Major Changes to the Programmatic EIS 

Topic Changes

Alternatives • BOEM has identified a Preferred Alternative in the Final Programmatic EIS. The discussion of the 

Preferred Alternative includes a comparative analysis of the alternatives considered and discusses 

differences in mitigation measures between alternatives.

• Minor changes have been made to Alternatives A and B, focusing on mitigation as described below.

• Updated information on non-airgun acoustic sources.

• Added a screening of costs associated with implementation of 2D seismic survey mitigation measures.

• Added an adaptive management discussion to address a flexible decision making process to be applied 

to the assessment of future actions.

Mitigation • Mitigation measures have been reorganized and revised to match the terms and conditions of the BO 

from NMFS.

• Time-area closures for the NARW have been modified to include DMA and would align with any 

future changes in critical habitat or U.S. SMA boundaries.

• Surveys authorized outside of critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs shall operate at distances such that 

received levels at the boundaries of these areas shall not exceed Level B harassment as determined by 

field verification or modeling. 

• Vessel strike avoidance guidelines have been revised and expanded to comply with the terms and 

conditions of the NMFS BO.

• The time-area closures for NARW have been revised. No seismic airguns would be allowed within 

NARW critical habitat, SMAs, or DMAs during certain periods. The HRG surveys would be allowed 

within NARW critical habitat for sources operating above 30 kHz between November 15 and April 15.

• Increased visual monitoring requirement duration to a minimum of 60 min for the absence of all 

marine mammals in the acoustic exclusion zone and adjacent waters for surveys using airguns. 

• Expanded the discussion of marine sanctuaries and avoidance of sensitive benthic communities.

• Clarification of survey protocols regarding the exception for delphinidae shutdown in instances when 

delphinids are voluntarily approaching the survey vessel(s) or equipment. 

Affected Environment • Updated information on Atlantic sturgeon to reflect the current status of this species, updated the 

petition status for the blueback herring, alewife, and white marlin, as well as petitions for listing the 

scalloped hammerhead shark and dusky shark. 

• Added information on existing submarine cables in the AOI.

• Added information about the vocalization capabilities of marine mammals.

• Expanded the discussion of underwater sound.

• Updated the commercial fish landing data.

• Included discussion of Post-Tropical Storm Sandy.
Tables Tables-89

Table 5-1. Major Changes to the Programmatic EIS (continued).

Topic Changes

Impacts • Added consideration of particle motion impacts for fishes, benthic communities, and marine mammals.

• Impacts to resources have been fully reevaluated as a result of changes to mitigation. Levels of impact 

remain largely unchanged; minor changes did occur for the following resources: sea turtles, fisheries

and EFH, commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, and marine protected areas. 

• Expanded the discussion of other analyses of impacts to marine mammals.

Cumulative Impacts • Expanded the cumulative activity scenario and cumulative impact analysis to better address: Navy 

activities, commercial shipping, submarine cable infrastructure, and cumulative noise in the sea.

Consultation • Section 7 consultation under ESA has been completed with NMFS, which issued a BO that included 

an Incidental Take Statement. FWS issued a letter of concurrence to conclude the consultation process 

with that agency.

• A number of other Federal laws and regulations are applicable to activities and operations on the OCS. 

For CZMA, MMPA, EFH (MSFCMA), NHPA, and NMSA, this Programmatic EIS provides the 

framework for subsequent environmental documents; consultation has not taken place at this stage 

under these acts, but will occur, as necessary, for future site-specific G&G activities.

• Text has been added to the discussion of applicable laws and regulations to clarify applicability and 

future actions necessary to address site-specific G&G activities. 

Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • The role of the COE has been clarified to explain their jurisdiction geographically as well as under 

particular applicable laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

Military and NASA Coordination • Text has been added to describe the establishment of a process to ensure potential conflicts between 

G&G surveys and the activities of the military and NASA are avoided. 

Cable Avoidance • Added description of the location of undersea cable infrastructure within the AOI and potential impact 

producing factors from the proposed action.
Tables-90 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table 5-2 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) Consultation Requirements 

and the Applicable Programmatic EIS Chapters

NMSA Discussion of Critical Elements Chapters Chapter Titles

Description of the action

Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Chapter 3 G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario

Chapter 3.2 Oil and Gas Development Surveys

Chapter 3.3 Renewable Energy G&G Surveys for Site 

Assessment and Characterization

Chapter 3.4 Marine Minerals G&G Surveys

An analysis of potential adverse effects 

on a NMS

Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Chapter 4.2.1 Benthic Communities

Chapter 4.2.11.1 (Marine Protected Areas) Description of the Affected 

Environment

Chapter 4.2.11.2 (Marine Protected Areas) Impacts of Routine Events 

Chapter 4.2.11.4 (Marine Protected Areas) Cumulative Events 

Federal agency conclusions regarding 

the identified effects

Chapter 4.2.11.1 (Marine Protected Areas) Description of the Affected 

Environment

Chapter 4.2.11.2 (Marine Protected Areas) Impacts of Routine Events 

Chapter 4.2.11.4 (Marine Protected Areas) Cumulative Events 

Mitigations plans (if applicable) Appendix C Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and 

Mitigation

Additional information Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 
KEYWORD INDEX

Keyword Index Keyword-3 

KEYWORD INDEX

2D Seismic Exploration Survey, 2-57, 2-58, 2-61, 2-63, 2-71, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-9, 3-16, 3-26, 3-27, 

3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-37, 4-3, 4-17, 4-57, 4-67, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-133, 4-137, 4-143, 4-144, 

4-159, 4-170, 4-175, 4-189, 4-190, 4-192, 4-207, 4-257, 4-271

3D Seismic Exploration Survey, 2-57, 2-58, 2-63, 2-65, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-13, 3-16, 3-26, 

3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-37, 4-3, 4-17, 4-18, 4-57, 4-67, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-137, 4-143, 

4-144, 4-170, 4-175, 4-181, 4-182, 4-189, 4-207, 4-257, 4-271

4D (Time-Lapse) Survey, 2-17, 2-64, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-13, 4-58, 4-181, 4-213

Accidents, 2-55, 3-37, 4-4, 4-23, 4-72, 4-98, 4-114, 4-115, 4-137, 4-148, 4-151, 4-163, 4-171, 4-196, 

4-197, 4-214, 4-244, 4-246, 4-275, 4-281, 4-296

Acoustic Monitoring, vii, 2-38, 4-28

Active Acoustic, ix, x, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, 2-9, 2-15, 2-16, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 

2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-37, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 

2-52, 2-53, 3-12, 3-26, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 4-4, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-24, 4-47, 4-48, 4-52, 4-56, 

4-68, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-90, 4-93, 4-97, 4-98, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-115, 4-131, 4-132, 

4-137, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-148, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-163, 4-164, 4-167, 4-169, 

4-171, 4-172, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-197, 4-198, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 

4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 

4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-261, 4-262, 

4-263, 4-264, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-278, 4-279, 4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 

4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-292, 4-293, 4-295

Adaptive Management, xxv, xxvii, 1-17, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 2-15, 2-39, 2-40, 2-58, 2-66, 2-68, 2-70, 

2-71, 2-72, 4-60, 4-224, 4-226, 4-228, 4-229, 4-234, 4-238, 4-241, 4-245, 4-249, 4-253, 4-257, 

4-259, 4-263, 4-266, 4-269, 5-10

Aeromagnetic, xiv, xvi, xxii, 2-23, 2-25, 2-27, 2-34, 2-42, 2-46, 2-48, 2-50, 2-54, 3-13, 3-31, 4-70, 4-71, 

4-76, 4-96, 4-100, 4-113, 4-211, 4-237, 4-238, 4-274, 4-276, 4-278, 4-296

Air Quality, 1-15, 2-56, 4-5 

Aircraft Traffic, ix, x, xv, xvi, xvii, xxii, xxiii, 2-15, 2-16, 2-23, 2-26, 2-27, 2-33, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-46, 2-48, 2-50, 2-54, 2-55, 2-66, 3-26, 3-45, 4-4, 4-48, 4-70, 4-72, 4-76, 4-90, 4-96, 4-98, 

4-100, 4-106, 4-113, 4-115, 4-206, 4-214, 4-215, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 

4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 

4-278, 4-282, 4-296, 4-297

Airgun, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, 

1-7, 1-13, 1-28, 1-29, 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 

2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-59, 

2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-71, 2-72, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-15, 

3-16, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-43, 3-52, 4-3, 4-4, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-24, 

4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 

4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-97, 4-98, 

4-99, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-111, 4-115, 4-116, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 

4-137, 4-143, 4-144, 4-148, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-163, 4-165, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 

4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-175, 4-177, 4-178, 4-185, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-196, 

4-197, 4-200, 4-208, 4-210, 4-213, 4-215, 4-221, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 

4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 

4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 

4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 
Keyword-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4-269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-279, 4-283, 4-285, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 

4-290, 4-293, 4-295, 4-296, 4-298, 4-299, 5-10, 5-11

Alewife, 2-28, 4-123, 4-140, 4-285

Alternative A, vii, x, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xix, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 2-15, 2-16, 2-19, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 

2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-66, 

2-67, 2-68, 2-71, 4-4, 4-8, 4-16, 4-20, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-48, 4-50, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-69, 4-70, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-95, 4-98, 4-100, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-115, 4-116, 

4-117, 4-137, 4-138, 4-144, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-157, 4-158, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 

4-163, 4-164, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 

4-183, 4-184, 4-189, 4-193, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-206, 4-211, 4-214, 4-215, 4-220, 4-223, 

4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 

4-239, 4-240, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 

4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 

4-267, 4-268, 4-270, 4-271, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 

4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-298, 5-9, 

5-10

Alternative B, vii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 

2-46, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 4-4, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 

4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 

4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 

4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 

4-270, 4-271, 5-9, 5-10

Alternative C, vii, xxiii, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-66, 2-71, 4-4, 

4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 

4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 

4-297, 4-298, 5-9 

Alternative Energy, 1-4, 1-10, 4-5 

Archaeological Resources, viii, ix, xxi, xxv, 1-4, 1-7, 1-9, 1-15, 1-17, 1-25, 2-3, 2-6, 2-7, 2-32, 2-33, 2-45, 

2-53, 2-55, 2-56, 2-70, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-9, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-21, 3-23, 3-24, 3-33, 

3-34, 4-3, 4-5, 4-179, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-190, 4-191, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-196, 4-211, 4-213, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-264, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-297, 5-16, 

5-17

Artificial Reefs, xx, xxii, 2-34, 2-46, 2-54, 4-8, 4-9, 4-16, 4-126, 4-127, 4-133, 4-156, 4-166, 4-174, 

4-187, 4-192, 4-193, 4-206, 4-211, 4-213, 4-294, 4-295

Atlantic Sturgeon, xviii, 2-28, 2-29, 2-43, 2-51, 2-52, 4-122, 4-140, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-285, 4-286

Attenuation, 2-61, 2-63, 2-65, 3-7, 4-17, 4-56, 4-67, 4-68

Beaked Whale, 4-35, 4-36, 4-49, 4-61, 4-62, 4-67, 4-69, 4-74

Benthic Communities, viii, ix, xviii, xx, xxi, xxvi, 1-7, 1-21, 2-3, 2-6, 2-7, 2-15, 2-16, 2-28, 2-29, 2-33, 

2-36, 2-39, 2-45, 2-48, 2-53, 2-55, 2-56, 2-70, 3-3, 3-5, 3-33, 3-34, 4-3, 4-5, 4-9, 4-10, 4-16, 4-17, 

4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-149, 4-162, 4-164, 4-165, 4-183, 4-184, 4-190, 

4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-200, 4-213, 4-214, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 

4-228, 4-247, 4-261, 4-262, 4-264, 4-272, 4-273, 4-293, 4-294, 4-297, 4-299

Bermuda Petrel, xvi, xvii, 2-27, 2-42, 2-51, 4-101, 4-103, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 

4-115, 4-119, 4-196, 4-280, 4-282

Biological Assessment (BA), viii, 1-13

Biological Opinion (BO), viii, 1-5 
Keyword Index Keyword-5 

Blue Whale, x, xi, 2-20, 4-27, 4-29, 4-54, 4-57, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-230

Blueback Herring, 2-28, 4-123, 4-134, 4-140

Bottlenose Dolphin, xi, xiii, 1-29, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-49, 4-38, 4-39, 4-52, 4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 

4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-74, 4-134, 4-228, 4-229

Bottom Sampling, viii, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, xxii, 1-7, 1-20, 2-3, 2-16, 2-28, 2-29, 2-32, 2-34, 2-48, 2-51, 

2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 3-3, 3-5, 3-11, 3-13, 3-21, 3-33, 3-34, 4-4, 4-16, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-135, 4-139, 

4-161, 4-174, 4-193, 4-211, 4-212, 4-271, 4-273, 4-283, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-291, 4-294, 4-296

Bottom-Founded Monitoring Buoy, 3-15, 3-19, 3-33, 4-21, 4-181, 4-182, 4-184, 4-193, 4-211, 4-272

Candidate Species, xvi, xvii, 4-101, 4-103, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-119, 4-139

Chemosynthetic Communities, ix, xxvi, 1-21, 2-7, 2-55, 3-33, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 

4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-162, 4-190, 4-193, 4-213, 4-273, 4-294, 4-297, 4-299

Coastal and Marine Birds, xxiii, 1-20, 2-66, 4-114, 4-118, 4-281

Coastal Pelagic, xvii, 4-119, 4-122, 4-123, 4-128, 4-133, 4-153, 4-154, 4-156, 4-159

Coastal Zone Management, viii, 1-3, 1-12, 1-13, 1-16, 2-47, 3-13, 3-23, 4-217, 5-14, 5-15

Collisions, 2-5, 2-22, 2-25, 2-27, 3-32, 3-37, 3-39, 4-4, 4-26, 4-48, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 

4-76, 4-95, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-109, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-136, 

4-139, 4-151, 4-162, 4-173, 4-176, 4-178, 4-185, 4-196, 4-200, 4-208, 4-216, 4-224, 4-228, 

4-229, 4-231, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-243, 4-247, 4-258, 4-261, 4-264, 4-267, 4-268, 4-271, 

4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280

Commercial Fisheries, xviii, xix, 2-30, 2-43, 2-44, 2-52, 2-70, 4-3, 4-5, 4-80, 4-86, 4-87, 4-151, 4-154, 

4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-167, 4-222, 

4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-287, 4-288, 5-10

Commercial Fishing, xix, 1-14, 1-25, 2-30, 2-52, 4-7, 4-8, 4-25, 4-27, 4-80, 4-87, 4-138, 4-149, 4-151, 

4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 

4-172, 4-173, 4-188, 4-199, 4-215, 4-216, 4-221, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-287, 4-288

Common Minke Whale, 4-35

Consultation and Coordination, 1-10, 1-12, 1-19, 5-1, 5-7, 5-18

Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) Well, 1-16

Controlled Source Electromagnetic (CSEM) Survey, 3-10

Coral, ix, xx, xxvi, 1-21, 2-7, 2-16, 2-28, 2-33, 2-45, 2-53, 2-55, 3-33, 4-5, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 

4-14, 4-15, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-83, 4-84, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-126, 4-127, 4-135, 

4-162, 4-168, 4-190, 4-193, 4-213, 4-273, 4-294, 4-297, 4-299

Core or Grab Sampling, 4-20, 4-161, 4-193, 4-211

Critical Habitat, xiv, xv, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, 1-13, 1-24, 1-28, 1-29, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-22, 

2-36, 2-37, 2-39, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-48, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 

4-72, 4-75, 4-77, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-87, 4-94, 4-99, 4-102, 4-107, 4-140, 4-142, 4-150, 

4-168, 4-225, 4-228, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-237, 4-240, 4-241, 4-244, 4-248, 4-252, 4-256, 

4-259, 4-261, 4-262, 4-265, 4-268, 4-275, 4-299, 5-11, 5-15, 5-16

Cultural Resources, 1-21, 1-28, 2-6, 2-71, 3-22, 3-23, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-184, 4-185, 4-194, 

4-196, 4-200, 4-262, 4-292, 4-294, 4-295, 4-299, 5-4 

Cumulative Impacts, xxiv, 1-5, 1-6, 2-55, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-53, 4-72, 4-73, 4-98, 4-100, 

4-115, 4-117, 4-136, 4-137, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-151, 4-163, 4-164, 4-171, 4-172, 4-177, 

4-183, 4-184, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-214, 4-215, 4-223, 4-224, 4-227, 4-228, 4-231, 4-232, 

4-236, 4-240, 4-243, 4-246, 4-247, 4-251, 4-255, 4-258, 4-260, 4-261, 4-264, 4-267, 4-268, 
Keyword-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4-270, 4-273, 4-275, 4-278, 4-282, 4-284, 4-286, 4-288, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-295, 4-297, 

4-298, 5-14

Debris, ix, x, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, xxv, 2-4, 2-6, 2-15, 2-16, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-31, 

2-32, 2-33, 2-36, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-48, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-55, 

3-26, 3-32, 3-33, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-44, 3-45, 3-49, 3-52, 4-4, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-19, 4-23, 

4-24, 4-25, 4-48, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-76, 4-90, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100, 4-102, 4-106, 4-114, 

4-115, 4-117, 4-141, 4-142, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 

4-178, 4-180, 4-181, 4-189, 4-193, 4-197, 4-198, 4-202, 4-209, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 

4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-244, 

4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 

4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-281, 4-282, 4-285, 4-286, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-294

Decibel, x, xi, xiii, 1-29, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-24, 2-27, 2-37, 2-49, 2-62, 2-64, 2-65, 

2-70, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-51, 3-52, 4-24, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 

4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 4-74, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 

4-94, 4-108, 4-110, 4-132, 4-134, 4-143, 4-145, 4-189, 4-191, 4-277, 5-10, 5-11

Deep Penetration Seismic Survey, 2-56, 3-3, 3-5, 3-26, 3-27, 4-90, 4-144

Deep Stratigraphic and Shallow Test Drilling, viii, 1-7, 2-3, 3-3, 3-5, 4-4, 4-174

Deepwater, ix, xiii, xv, xx, xxi, xxvi, 1-7, 1-21, 2-3, 2-7, 2-16, 2-24, 2-28, 2-33, 2-45, 2-49, 2-53, 2-55, 

2-60, 2-62, 3-3, 3-10, 3-33, 3-35, 3-41, 3-49, 4-8, 4-9, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-20, 4-21, 

4-22, 4-23, 4-36, 4-60, 4-68, 4-92, 4-109, 4-120, 4-121, 4-133, 4-136, 4-147, 4-161, 4-162, 4-164, 

4-186, 4-187, 4-190, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-196, 4-197, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-205, 4-208, 

4-212, 4-213, 4-262, 4-273, 4-294, 4-295, 4-297, 5-6 

Demersal, xvii, xviii, 2-28, 2-29, 2-43, 2-51, 2-52, 4-11, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-126, 

4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-149, 4-150, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-159, 

4-160, 4-286

Discharges, ix, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, xxiii, 1-16, 2-7, 2-15, 2-16, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-32, 2-33, 2-39, 2-42, 

2-43, 2-45, 2-48, 2-51, 2-53, 2-66, 3-26, 3-32, 3-35, 3-36, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-45, 3-49, 

3-52, 4-4, 4-5, 4-16, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-72, 4-73, 4-98, 4-131, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 

4-139, 4-142, 4-147, 4-148, 4-178, 4-181, 4-183, 4-184, 4-189, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-200, 

4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-259, 4-260, 

4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-272, 4-273, 4-275, 4-282, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-291, 4-292

Dynamic Management Area, xxvi, xxvii, 1-5, 2-4, 2-5, 2-12, 2-14, 3-29, 4-229, 4-233, 4-234

Electromagnetic Survey, viii, 1-7, 2-3, 3-3, 3-5, 4-182

Employment, 2-17, 3-36, 3-37, 4-166, 4-174, 4-221, 4-222

Endangered Species Act (ESA), viii, ix, xv, xvii, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 1-10, 1-13, 1-14, 1-24, 1-25, 1-27, 

1-29, 2-3, 2-5, 2-15, 2-27, 2-28, 2-48, 2-68, 3-3, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 4-6, 4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 

4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-77, 

4-81, 4-85, 4-91, 4-99, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-105, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-148, 4-271, 5-5, 

5-9, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16

Ensonification, xxvii, 2-9, 2-12, 3-28, 4-63, 4-74, 4-226, 4-229, 4-234, 4-238, 4-241, 4-245, 4-249, 4-253, 

4-257, 4-259, 4-263, 4-266, 4-269, 5-10

Environmental Justice, 1-21, 4-220, 4-222

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), viii, ix, xvii, xviii, xxiii, 1-4, 1-15, 1-25, 2-27, 2-28, 2-42, 2-43, 2-51, 2-55, 

2-56, 2-70, 4-3, 4-5, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 4-119, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-131, 4-134, 

4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 

4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-261, 4-262, 4-282, 4-284, 4-293, 4-294, 5-9, 5-10, 5-16

Essential Fish Habitats, viii, xvii, 1-4, 1-15, 2-27, 2-42, 2-51, 4-11, 4-119, 4-125, 4-126, 4-240, 4-282
Keyword Index Keyword-7 

Exclusion Zone, x, xv, xix, xx, xxii, xxvi, xxvii, 1-28, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-20, 

2-24, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-37, 2-38, 2-44, 2-45, 2-68, 3-24, 3-32, 4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 

4-57, 4-58, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-73, 4-75, 4-92, 4-94, 4-99, 4-160, 4-161, 4-164, 4-170, 4-171, 

4-172, 4-175, 4-177, 4-190, 4-191, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-210, 4-211, 4-215, 4-228, 4-230, 

4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-239, 4-242, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-256, 

4-257, 4-260, 4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-269

False Killer Whale, 4-41, 4-52

Fin Whale, x, xi, 2-20, 4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-52, 4-54, 4-57, 4-61, 4-63, 4-69

Fish Resources, xvii, xviii, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-42, 2-51, 2-70, 4-5, 4-119, 4-126, 4-134, 4-157, 4-158, 

4-168

Fisheries, viii, xvii, xviii, xix, xxiii, 1-4, 1-12, 1-14, 1-15, 1-20, 1-21, 1-25, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-43, 2-44, 

2-52, 2-57, 2-70, 4-3, 4-5, 4-8, 4-50, 4-71, 4-80, 4-82, 4-84, 4-87, 4-119, 4-123, 4-125, 4-127, 

4-128, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-149, 4-151, 4-152, 

4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 

4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-186, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-196, 4-197, 4-220, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 

4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-261, 4-262, 4-282, 4-284, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-293, 4-294, 5-11, 5-13, 

5-16

Fishes, ix, xvii, xviii, xix, 1-5, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-51, 2-52, 

2-55, 2-56, 2-65, 3-44, 3-52, 4-3, 4-5, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 4-19, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 

4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-86, 4-103, 4-104, 4-119, 4-120, 

4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 

4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-151, 4-152, 4-154, 

4-155, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-162, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-173, 4-186, 

4-187, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-196, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-262, 4-283, 4-284, 

4-285, 4-287, 4-289, 4-294, 4-298

Frequency, xiii, xv, xvii, 2-19, 2-21, 2-23, 2-24, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-63, 2-64, 2-65, 3-10, 3-12, 3-16, 

3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-6, 4-7, 4-17, 4-18, 4-24, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 

4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 

4-52, 4-54, 4-57, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-67, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-78, 4-89, 4-91, 4-94, 

4-95, 4-96, 4-98, 4-99, 4-108, 4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-134, 4-137, 

4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-148, 4-159, 4-161, 4-169, 4-170, 4-189, 4-197, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 

4-228, 4-231, 4-232, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-245, 4-258, 4-277, 4-283, 4-285, 4-289, 4-293

Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Activities, vii, viii, ix, xiv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxv, 

xxvi, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 

1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 2-29, 

2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 

2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 

2-72, 3-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 

3-33, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-45, 3-47, 3-52, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 

4-12, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-48, 4-50, 4-52, 4-55, 4-56, 

4-60, 4-63, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-90, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 

4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-129, 4-131, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-142, 

4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 

4-163, 4-165, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-177, 4-178, 

4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 

4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-204, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 

4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-229, 

4-232, 4-233, 4-237, 4-238, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 

4-249, 4-252, 4-253, 4-256, 4-262, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 
Keyword-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 

4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-298, 

4-299, 4-300, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18

Geotechnical Survey, viii, 1-7, 1-20, 2-47, 3-11, 3-14, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-21, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-37, 

4-208, 4-271, 4-272, 4-276, 4-277, 4-279, 4-283, 4-285, 4-287, 4-289, 4-293, 4-296

Hammerhead Shark, xviii, 2-28, 4-140

Harassment, viii, x, xiv, xxiv, 1-14, 1-29, 2-5, 2-12, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-49, 2-67, 3-43, 4-47, 

4-54, 4-55, 4-58, 4-63, 4-65, 4-67

Harbor Porpoise, 4-38, 4-54, 4-62, 4-67

Hard Bottom, xvii, xx, 1-7, 3-3, 3-15, 3-22, 3-43, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-21, 4-84, 

4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-132, 4-133, 4-135, 4-141, 4-152, 

4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-166, 4-168, 4-174, 4-186, 4-187, 4-273, 4-283

Hard/Live Bottom, ix, xx, xxvi, 1-21, 2-7, 2-16, 2-28, 2-33, 2-45, 2-53, 2-55, 3-33, 4-5, 4-9, 4-13, 4-16, 

4-17, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-120, 4-162, 4-168, 4-190, 4-193, 4-213, 4-273, 4-294, 4-297, 

4-299

Harp Seal, x, 2-17, 2-19, 2-21, 2-49, 4-46, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65

High-Resolution Geophysical (HRG) Survey, vii, viii, x, xiii, xiv, xv, xxiv, xxvii, 1-7, 1-13, 2-3, 2-4, 

2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-27, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 

2-39, 2-41, 2-44, 2-47, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-9, 3-10, 

3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-21, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-30, 3-37, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 

4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 4-74, 4-75, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-99, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-111, 

4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-137, 4-143, 4-145, 4-168, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-208, 4-221, 

4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 

4-238, 4-239, 4-241, 4-242, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 

4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 

4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-274, 4-276, 4-279, 4-283, 4-285, 4-287, 4-289, 4-293, 

4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-298, 5-10, 5-11, 5-15

Human Resources, ix, xxii, xxiii, 2-34, 2-35, 2-46, 2-54, 2-56, 2-70, 4-3, 4-5, 4-9, 4-217, 4-219, 4-220, 

4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 4-297, 4-298

Humpback Whale, x, xi, 2-20, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-55, 4-57, 4-61, 4-63, 4-65, 4-71, 4-74

Hurricanes, 3-22, 3-39, 3-50, 4-78

Impact, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xiv, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, 1-5, 1-6, 1-9, 1-12, 1-14, 1-15, 1-20, 1-22, 

2-3, 2-15, 2-17, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-26, 2-29, 2-30, 2-33, 2-35, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-44, 2-45, 

2-46, 2-50, 2-51, 2-54, 2-56, 2-59, 2-64, 2-66, 2-67, 2-69, 3-28, 3-35, 3-37, 3-42, 3-43, 3-47, 

3-51, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-54, 

4-56, 4-58, 4-60, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-91, 4-98, 4-99, 

4-101, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 

4-119, 4-129, 4-131, 4-133, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-151, 4-158, 4-159, 

4-160, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-176, 4-177, 

4-178, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-191, 4-193, 4-195, 4-197, 4-198, 4-200, 4-202, 4-207, 

4-208, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-227, 4-228, 

4-229, 4-231, 4-232, 4-234, 4-236, 4-240, 4-243, 4-244, 4-246, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-255, 

4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-264, 4-267, 4-268, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 

4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-282, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-288, 4-290, 4-291, 

4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-297, 4-298, 4-299, 5-6, 5-10, 5-11, 5-15

Incidental Take, viii, ix, x, xi, xiii, xxiii, xxiv, 1-5, 1-14, 1-24, 2-9, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-49, 2-66, 

2-67, 3-13, 3-42, 4-44, 4-47, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-74, 4-229, 5-16

Incidental Take Authorization, ix, 1-4, 1-6, 4-60
Keyword Index Keyword-9 

Infrastructure, xxiv, 1-20, 2-6, 2-57, 3-10, 3-22, 3-39, 3-52, 4-7, 4-23, 4-25, 4-72, 4-77, 4-98, 4-115, 

4-136, 4-138, 4-147, 4-163, 4-171, 4-177, 4-183, 4-197, 4-202, 4-206, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 

4-217, 4-219, 4-220, 4-223, 4-227, 4-231, 4-236, 4-240, 4-243, 4-246, 4-251, 4-255, 4-258, 

4-260, 4-264, 4-267, 4-270, 4-273, 4-275, 4-278, 4-282, 4-284, 4-286, 4-288, 4-290, 4-291, 

4-292, 4-295, 4-297, 4-298

Killer Whale, 4-40, 4-41, 4-52, 4-54, 4-134

Land Use, ix, xxii, xxiii, 1-20, 2-34, 2-35, 2-46, 2-54, 2-56, 2-70, 4-3, 4-5, 4-9, 4-217, 4-218, 4-220, 

4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 4-297, 4-298

Level A Harassment, viii, xi, xiii, 1-14, 2-12, 2-15, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-49, 4-55, 4-58, 4-63, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-74, 4-91, 4-230, 4-298, 4-299

Level B Harassment, viii, x, xi, xiii, xiv, xxvi, 1-14, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-15, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 

2-22, 2-36, 2-49, 2-68, 2-70, 4-55, 4-58, 4-64, 4-65, 4-67, 4-74, 4-228, 4-232, 4-298, 4-299

Live Bottoms, 2-7, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-126, 4-154, 4-186

Loggerhead Sea Turtle, 1-29, 4-186

Low Relief, 3-15, 4-12, 4-187

Magnetotelluric (MT) Survey, 3-10

Marine and Coastal Birds, xvi, xvii, 2-26, 2-27, 2-42, 2-50, 2-70, 4-3, 4-5, 4-101, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 

4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 

4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-261, 4-262, 4-264, 

4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-293, 4-295

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), viii, 1-3, 1-14, 5-16

Marine Mammals, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, 1-3, 1-5, 1-9, 1-13, 1-14, 1-20, 

1-24, 1-25, 1-29, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-27, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-55, 2-56, 2-61, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 

2-70, 3-13, 3-42, 3-43, 3-50, 3-51, 4-3, 4-5, 4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 

4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 

4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 

4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-91, 4-92, 4-97, 4-100, 4-125, 4-134, 4-157, 

4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-207, 4-224, 4-226, 4-228, 4-229, 

4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-235, 4-239, 4-242, 4-246, 4-250, 4-254, 4-257, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 

4-263, 4-264, 4-266, 4-269, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-293, 4-294, 4-298, 4-299, 5-5, 5-10, 5-12, 

5-16

Marine Minerals, vii, viii, ix, xiii, xxii, xxiv, xxv, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-23, 2-3, 2-6, 2-26, 

2-35, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-68, 3-3, 3-5, 3-15, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-37, 3-40, 3-45, 3-47, 3-52, 4-3, 4-4, 

4-7, 4-9, 4-20, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-67, 4-72, 4-73, 4-92, 4-94, 4-98, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 4-115, 

4-117, 4-133, 4-136, 4-144, 4-147, 4-158, 4-161, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-168, 4-171, 4-172, 

4-174, 4-177, 4-181, 4-183, 4-196, 4-199, 4-203, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-212, 4-214, 

4-215, 4-217, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-227, 4-231, 4-236, 4-237, 4-240, 4-241, 

4-243, 4-244, 4-246, 4-248, 4-251, 4-252, 4-255, 4-256, 4-258, 4-260, 4-262, 4-264, 4-267, 

4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 

4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 

4-296, 4-297, 4-298, 4-299, 5-3, 5-9, 5-10, 5-14, 5-17

Marine Minerals Program, vii, 1-4, 1-7, 1-10, 1-23, 1-24, 2-6, 2-35, 2-47, 2-48, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 

2-56, 2-68, 3-21, 3-22, 3-25, 3-26, 3-34, 3-40, 4-4, 4-20, 4-73, 4-92, 4-133, 4-161, 4-181, 4-203, 

4-208, 4-209, 4-271, 4-273, 4-283, 4-286, 4-288, 4-291, 4-296, 4-298, 5-9, 5-10, 5-17

Marine Protected Areas (MPA), ix, xxi, 1-21, 2-33, 2-45, 2-53, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-192, 

4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-261, 4-292, 4-294, 4-295
Keyword-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Marine Transportation, xxii, xxiv, 2-33, 2-34, 2-46, 2-54, 3-49, 4-7, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 

4-98, 4-99, 4-115, 4-117, 4-118, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-147, 4-148, 4-151, 4-163, 4-171, 4-172, 

4-173, 4-177, 4-178, 4-183, 4-185, 4-197, 4-201, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-211, 4-212, 4-214, 

4-215, 4-216, 4-223, 4-224, 4-227, 4-231, 4-236, 4-240, 4-243, 4-246, 4-251, 4-255, 4-258, 

4-260, 4-264, 4-267, 4-270, 4-271, 4-273, 4-275, 4-276, 4-278, 4-282, 4-284, 4-286, 4-288, 

4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-298

Melon-Headed Whale, 4-43, 4-44, 4-50, 4-62

Meteorological Conditions, 3-37, 4-72, 4-196, 4-214, 4-297

Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use, xxii, xxiv, 2-34, 4-7, 4-23, 4-72, 4-98, 

4-115, 4-117, 4-136, 4-138, 4-147, 4-149, 4-150, 4-163, 4-171, 4-172, 4-177, 4-183, 4-197, 

4-198, 4-202, 4-206, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-223, 4-227, 4-231, 

4-236, 4-240, 4-243, 4-246, 4-251, 4-255, 4-258, 4-260, 4-264, 4-267, 4-270, 4-273, 4-275, 

4-278, 4-282, 4-284, 4-286, 4-288, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-298

Mitigation, vii, ix, x, xi, xiv, xviii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-14, 1-22, 1-23, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 

1-28, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-27, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 

2-40, 2-41, 2-44, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-58, 2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 3-3, 

3-22, 3-28, 3-33, 3-42, 4-18, 4-25, 4-26, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 

4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-80, 4-92, 4-95, 4-97, 4-98, 

4-99, 4-101, 4-118, 4-139, 4-151, 4-165, 4-173, 4-178, 4-183, 4-185, 4-190, 4-191, 4-194, 4-198, 

4-200, 4-216, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-236, 4-237, 

4-238, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-244, 4-245, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 

4-256, 4-257, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-271, 

4-276, 4-277, 4-293, 4-295, 4-298, 4-299, 4-300, 5-3, 5-4, 5-10, 5-11, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18

Mitigation Measure, ix, x, xi, xiv, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, 1-5, 1-6, 1-22, 1-27, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, 2-11, 

2-12, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-27, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-47, 2-48, 2-58, 2-64, 

2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 3-3, 3-28, 3-42, 4-25, 4-26, 4-48, 4-53, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 

4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-80, 4-92, 4-95, 4-98, 4-101, 4-118, 4-139, 

4-151, 4-165, 4-173, 4-178, 4-185, 4-190, 4-191, 4-198, 4-200, 4-216, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 

4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-240, 4-242, 4-244, 4-245, 

4-247, 4-250, 4-252, 4-254, 4-256, 4-257, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 

4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-271, 4-277, 4-293, 4-298, 4-299, 4-300, 5-3, 5-10, 5-11, 5-16, 5-18

Monitoring, vii, viii, xi, xiv, xxv, xxvii, 1-3, 1-14, 1-23, 1-26, 1-27, 1-29, 2-4, 2-9, 2-13, 2-22, 2-35, 2-36, 

2-37, 2-38, 2-44, 2-64, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-72, 3-6, 3-8, 3-21, 3-22, 3-25, 3-35, 4-22, 4-52, 4-66, 

4-73, 4-75, 4-94, 4-99, 4-129, 4-135, 4-146, 4-180, 4-182, 4-188, 4-190, 4-191, 4-193, 4-206, 

4-212, 4-225, 4-226, 4-230, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-241, 4-242, 4-244, 

4-245, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-256, 4-257, 4-259, 4-260, 4-262, 

4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 4-273, 4-276, 4-283, 4-286, 4-287, 4-291, 

4-294, 4-296, 4-300, 5-10, 5-17, 5-18

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), vii, viii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 

1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-17, 1-18, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 2-3, 2-38, 

2-40, 2-41, 2-47, 2-48, 2-56, 2-58, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-72, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-13, 3-14, 3-22, 

3-37, 3-38, 4-5, 4-6, 4-26, 4-28, 4-39, 4-50, 4-53, 4-56, 4-76, 4-100, 4-118, 4-139, 4-150, 4-165, 

4-173, 4-178, 4-185, 4-200, 4-205, 4-213, 4-216, 4-217, 4-220, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-230, 

4-234, 4-238, 4-241, 4-245, 4-250, 4-254, 4-257, 4-260, 4-263, 4-266, 4-269, 4-271, 4-298, 

4-299, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-16, 5-17

National Marine Sanctuary (NMS), xxvi, 1-3, 1-4, 1-18, 2-7, 4-13, 4-186, 4-190, 4-193, 4-195, 4-197, 

4-199, 4-293, 4-294, 5-11, 5-17

Noise, ix, x, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, 1-17, 1-28, 2-12, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-33, 2-34, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-43, 2-46, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-59, 2-61, 2-63, 2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 
Keyword Index Keyword-11

2-68, 2-72, 3-6, 3-7, 3-16, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-43, 3-45, 3-49, 3-51, 

3-52, 4-4, 4-7, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-23, 4-24, 4-27, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 

4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 

4-75, 4-76, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 

4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-158, 4-159, 4-163, 4-164, 

4-168, 4-171, 4-172, 4-177, 4-183, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-197, 4-198, 4-206, 4-211, 

4-214, 4-215, 4-221, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 

4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 

4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-251, 4-253, 4-255, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-262, 4-263, 

4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-269, 4-270, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 

4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 

4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-298

North Atlantic Right Whale, vii, x, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, 1-5, 1-13, 2-5, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 

2-13, 2-14, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-36, 2-37, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-44, 2-49, 2-66, 2-68, 2-69, 

2-70, 2-71, 4-27, 4-28, 4-54, 4-57, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 

4-92, 4-94, 4-168, 4-186, 4-188, 4-225, 4-228, 4-229, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-236, 4-237, 4-240, 

4-241, 4-244, 4-248, 4-252, 4-256, 4-259, 4-261, 4-262, 4-265, 4-266, 4-268, 4-275, 5-11, 5-15

Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL), 1-23, 1-27, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 3-4, 3-9, 3-33, 3-45, 4-7, 4-19, 

4-25, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-76, 4-95, 4-97, 4-100, 4-114, 4-117, 4-146, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-193, 

4-198, 4-209, 4-210, 4-265, 5-15

Ocean Bottom Cable Survey, 2-65, 3-7, 3-8, 4-182

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM), vii, xi, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 1-26, 2-9, 2-10, 2-14, 2-19, 2-35, 2-36, 

2-38, 2-40, 2-41, 2-67, 2-68, 2-70, 2-71, 4-60, 4-224, 4-226, 4-227, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-235, 

4-236, 4-239, 4-242, 4-243, 4-246, 4-247, 4-250, 4-251, 4-254, 4-255, 4-257, 4-258, 4-260, 

4-261, 4-263, 4-264, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 5-10, 5-18

Physical Oceanography, 4-3, 4-5 

Pilot Whale, xi, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 4-42, 4-44, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-66

Pinniped, 2-17, 2-49, 4-46, 4-55, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68

Pipelines, viii, 1-7, 1-16, 1-20, 2-3, 3-3, 3-5, 3-10, 3-11, 3-34, 4-20, 4-98, 4-138, 4-149, 4-175

Piping Plover, xvi, xvii, 2-27, 2-42, 2-51, 4-101, 4-102, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-118, 

4-119, 4-196, 4-280, 4-282

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, 

1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 1-14, 1-15, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 

1-25, 1-26, 1-28, 1-29, 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 2-38, 2-47, 2-55, 

2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 2-64, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 3-3, 3-4, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-19, 3-20, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-45, 3-47, 

3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 4-5, 4-7, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-24, 4-26, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 

4-70, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-90, 4-94, 4-96, 4-99, 4-100, 4-108, 4-113, 4-116, 4-117, 4-119, 4-137, 

4-138, 4-139, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-164, 4-165, 4-173, 4-178, 4-183, 4-185, 4-200, 4-204, 

4-208, 4-211, 4-213, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-220, 4-224, 4-229, 4-271, 4-296, 4-299, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 

5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18

Protected Species Observer, x, xxvi, 2-9, 2-10, 2-14

Pygmy Killer Whale, 4-40, 4-41

Ramp-Up, xv, xxvi, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-24, 2-27, 2-38, 2-40, 3-6, 4-17, 4-18, 4-57, 4-64, 4-75, 

4-93, 4-99, 4-168, 4-190, 4-230

Record of Decision, 1-8, 1-23
Keyword-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Recreational Fishing, ix, xix, xxiv, 2-31, 2-44, 2-52, 2-55, 3-41, 3-52, 4-7, 4-13, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-72, 

4-98, 4-111, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-120, 4-136, 4-139, 4-147, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-161, 4-163, 

4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-177, 4-178, 4-183, 4-184, 

4-185, 4-191, 4-197, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-214, 4-216, 4-223, 4-224, 4-227, 4-231, 4-236, 

4-240, 4-243, 4-246, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-258, 4-260, 4-264, 4-267, 4-270, 

4-273, 4-275, 4-276, 4-278, 4-282, 4-284, 4-286, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-294, 

4-295, 4-297, 4-298

Recreational Resources, ix, xx, 2-31, 2-32, 2-44, 2-45, 2-52, 2-53, 2-55, 2-56, 2-70, 4-3, 4-5, 4-173, 

4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-197, 4-198, 4-221, 4-222, 4-256, 

4-257, 4-258, 4-261, 4-262, 4-264, 4-290, 4-291, 4-294, 4-297

Red Knot, xvi, xvii, 2-27, 2-42, 2-51, 4-101, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 

4-114, 4-118, 4-119, 4-280, 4-282

Remote-Sensing Survey, 3-5, 3-12

Renewable Energy, vii, viii, ix, xiii, xxii, xxiv, xxv, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-23, 1-24, 

1-26, 2-3, 2-6, 2-26, 2-33, 2-35, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 

2-68, 3-3, 3-5, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 

3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 3-45, 3-47, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-20, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-56, 

4-67, 4-72, 4-73, 4-90, 4-92, 4-94, 4-98, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-132, 4-133, 

4-134, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-143, 4-144, 4-147, 4-158, 4-161, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-168, 

4-171, 4-172, 4-174, 4-177, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-189, 4-193, 4-194, 4-196, 4-199, 4-201, 

4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 4-214, 4-215, 4-217, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 

4-225, 4-227, 4-231, 4-236, 4-237, 4-240, 4-241, 4-243, 4-244, 4-246, 4-248, 4-251, 4-252, 

4-255, 4-256, 4-258, 4-260, 4-262, 4-264, 4-267, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 

4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 

4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-298, 4-299, 5-3, 5-9, 5-14, 5-15, 

5-17, 5-18

Roseate Tern, xvi, xvii, 2-27, 2-42, 2-51, 4-101, 4-102, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 

4-118, 4-119, 4-196, 4-280, 4-282

Rough-Toothed Dolphin, 4-45

Sargassum, xviii, 2-28, 2-43, 4-78, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-93, 4-123, 4-127, 4-136, 4-162, 4-242, 4-284

Sea Turtles, vii, ix, x, xv, xvi, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, 1-5, 1-13, 1-20, 2-4, 2-5, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 

2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-41, 2-50, 2-55, 2-56, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-70, 

2-71, 3-40, 3-44, 3-49, 4-3, 4-5, 4-13, 4-58, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 

4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-157,

4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-229, 

4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-238, 4-239, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 

4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 

4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-269, 4-270, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 

4-293, 4-294, 4-298, 4-299, 5-10

Seals, xi, 4-27, 4-34, 4-46, 4-47

Seasonal Management Area (SMA), xiv, xxvi, 1-5, 1-13, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13, 2-22, 2-36, 2-37, 2-39, 

2-69, 2-70, 3-29, 4-28, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-75, 4-225, 4-228, 4-229, 4-231, 4-232, 4-237, 4-240, 

4-241, 4-244, 4-248, 4-252, 4-256, 4-259, 4-261, 4-262, 4-265, 4-268, 5-11, 5-15

Sei Whale, x, xi, 2-20, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-57, 4-63, 4-74

Seismic, vii, viii, x, xi, xv, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, 1-3, 1-5, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-16, 

1-26, 1-28, 1-29, 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 

2-27, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 

2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-63, 

2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-12, 3-13, 3-16, 
Keyword Index Keyword-13

3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 3-52, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-50, 

4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 

4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-98, 4-99, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-111, 

4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-137, 4-143, 4-144, 4-148, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 

4-162, 4-165, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-177, 4-178, 4-181, 

4-185, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-196, 4-197, 4-200, 4-207, 4-208, 4-210, 4-213, 4-215, 

4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 

4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 

4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 

4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-274, 

4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-279, 4-283, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-289, 4-290, 4-293, 4-298, 4-299, 

4-300, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-18

Shallow Test Drilling, 3-11, 3-13, 3-33, 3-34, 4-4, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183

Shipwreck, 4-179, 4-182, 4-184, 4-213, 4-292

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin, xi, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 4-43, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-66

Shortnose Sturgeon, xviii, 2-28, 2-29, 2-43, 2-51, 2-52, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-285, 4-286

Significance Criteria, ix, 1-5, 2-19, 4-5, 4-60, 4-181, 4-207

Smalltooth Sawfish, xviii, 2-28, 2-29, 2-43, 2-51, 2-52, 4-17, 4-122, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 

4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-244, 4-245, 4-285, 4-286

Soft Bottom, xvii, xx, 2-29, 2-48, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 3-43, 4-5, 4-11, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-26, 

4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-132, 4-135, 4-155, 4-166, 4-190, 4-193, 4-195, 4-212, 4-273, 4-283, 

4-286, 4-299

Sperm Whale, x, xi, xiii, 1-13, 1-24, 2-20, 2-21, 2-49, 4-27, 4-32, 4-33, 4-37, 4-53, 4-57, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 

4-65, 4-69

Stenella Dolphin, 4-37

Synthetic-Based Fluid (SBF), 3-35, 3-36

Synthetic-Based Fluids, 3-35, 3-36, 4-22, 4-23, 4-136, 4-147

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), 2-27, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-63, 4-66, 4-74, 4-91, 

4-92, 4-93, 4-132, 4-143, 4-283, 4-298, 4-299

Threatened and Endangered Species, xvi, 1-4, 1-13, 4-101, 4-285, 4-286

Tourism, 2-57, 4-174

Trash, ix, x, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, xxv, 2-6, 2-15, 2-16, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-31, 2-32, 

2-33, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-48, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-55, 3-26, 3-32, 

3-33, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-45, 3-49, 3-52, 4-4, 4-16, 4-19, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-48, 4-71, 4-72, 

4-73, 4-76, 4-90, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100, 4-106, 4-114, 4-115, 4-117, 4-142, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 

4-149, 4-150, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-189, 4-193, 4-197, 4-198, 4-225, 4-226, 

4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 

4-240, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-272, 

4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-281, 4-282, 4-285, 4-286, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 

4-293, 4-294

Vertical Cable Survey, 3-8, 3-13, 3-34, 4-182

Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) Survey, 3-8, 4-57, 4-92, 4-135, 4-143, 4-146, 4-181, 4-189

Vessel Exclusion Zone, ix, xix, xx, xxii, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 

2-55, 3-26, 3-32, 4-4, 4-8, 4-157, 4-160, 4-161, 4-163, 4-164, 4-167, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-174, 

4-175, 4-177, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 4-214, 4-215, 4-221, 4-247, 4-248, 
Keyword-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 

4-268, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-296

Vessel Strike, xiv, xvi, xxiii, xxv, xxvii, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-22, 2-25, 2-36, 2-37, 2-39, 

2-66, 2-69, 2-70, 3-43, 4-27, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-73, 4-75, 4-95, 4-99, 4-146, 4-244, 4-276, 4-277, 

4-285, 5-11

Vessel Traffic, ix, x, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xxii, xxiii, 2-5, 2-15, 2-16, 2-22, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-29, 

2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-46, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 

2-54, 2-55, 2-67, 3-26, 3-29, 3-32, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-45, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 4-4, 4-8, 4-24, 4-26, 

4-48, 4-55, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 4-76, 4-89, 4-90, 4-95, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-106, 

4-109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-115, 4-117, 4-119, 4-137, 4-139, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-151, 4-157, 4-160, 4-161, 4-163, 4-164, 4-167, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 

4-177, 4-178, 4-180, 4-185, 4-197, 4-200, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 4-214, 

4-215, 4-216, 4-222, 4-224, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 

4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 

4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-258, 4-261, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-271, 4-274, 

4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 

4-289, 4-290, 4-296, 4-297

Visual Monitoring, xv, xxvi, xxvii, 2-9, 2-13, 2-19, 2-24, 2-36, 4-57, 4-60, 4-64, 4-66, 4-75, 4-92, 4-93, 

4-99, 4-190, 4-228, 4-230, 4-232, 4-300, 5-10

Vocalization, 2-19, 4-28, 4-34, 4-54, 4-60, 4-63, 4-64

Waste Disposal, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41

Wastes, 3-26, 3-32, 4-4, 4-186, 4-191, 4-195, 4-199

Water Quality, 1-16, 2-47, 2-56, 3-13, 3-23, 3-43, 3-50, 4-3, 4-4, 4-9, 4-189

West Indian Manatee, x, xi, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-49, 4-27, 4-33, 4-34, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65

White Marlin, 2-28, 4-123, 4-128, 4-140

Wide Azimuth (WAZ) Survey, 3-7, 3-13, 3-27, 3-30, 3-32, 4-17, 4-57, 4-67, 4-91, 4-92, 4-143, 4-189, 

4-207, 4-271
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior 

has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering the sound use of our land and water 

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure 

that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a 

major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island communities. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Mission 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promotes energy 

independence, environmental protection, and economic development through 

responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and 

renewable energy.