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 III: Appendices B-M 

 
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 III: Appendices B-M 

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 

Table of Contents iii

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
iv 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 v 

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
vi 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 vii

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
viii 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 ix

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
x 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 xi

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
xii 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 xiii

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
xiv 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 xv

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 
xvi 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 xvii

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
xviii 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 xix

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 xxi

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
xxii 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 xxiii

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

APPENDIX B 

 

STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

State Coastal Zone Management Programs B-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. STATE OF NEW JERSEY’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................................... B-1

2. STATE OF DELAWARE’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................... B-2

3. STATE OF MARYLAND’S COASTAL PROGRAM ...................................................................... B-2

4. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA’S COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM........... B-3

5. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ............................ B-4

6. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA’S COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................. B-4

7. STATE OF GEORGIA’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............................................. B-5

8. STATE OF FLORIDA’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .............................................. B-6

9. REFERENCES CITED....................................................................................................................... B-7

State Coastal Zone Management Programs B-1

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was established to develop comprehensive programs to 

manage and balance competing uses of and impacts to coastal resources. The CZMA emphasizes the 

primacy of State decision-making regarding the coastal zone preserve, to protect, develop, and where 

possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding 

generations; and to encourage and assist the States to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the 

coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use 

of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, 

historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development. In order to 

implement CZMA, each State has a Coastal Management Program (CMP) that is federally approved by 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These CMPs are a comprehensive 

statement setting forth objectives, enforceable policies, and standards for public and private use of land 

and water resources and uses in that State's coastal zone.

Federal consistency is the CZMA requirement where Federal agency activities that have reasonably 

foreseeable effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a coastal State’s federally approved 

CMP. The State requirements for Federal consistency review are based on the requirements of State 

statutes, CZMA regulations at 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 930, and U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior (USDOI) regulations at 30 CFR part 250, 30 CFR part 254, and 30 CFR part 256. There are 

currently changes being undertaken within the CZMA program regulations, and NOAA intends to replace 

the CZMA program change regulations, 15 CFR part 923 subpart H, and the Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management’s (OCRM’s) Program Change Guidance (July 1996) with new regulations at 

15 CFR part 923 subpart H (U.S. Dept. of Commerce [USDOC], NOAA, 2008). 

Each coastal State’s official coastal boundary can be identified from NOAA’s website

(USDOC, NOAA, 2011). Federal agencies provide feedback to the States through each Section 312 

evaluation conducted by NOAA.

A State’s approved CMP may also provide for the State’s review of permits and license activities to 

determine whether they will be conducted in a manner consistent with the State’s CMP. This review 

authority is applicable to activities conducted in any area that has been leased under the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and that affect any land or water use or natural resource within the State’s 

coastal zone (16 United States Code § 1456(c)(3)(B)). 

This section provides an overview of the CMP within each State within the area of interest.

1. STATE OF NEW JERSEY’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The New Jersey Coastal Management Program (CMP) was first approved by NOAA in 1978 and is 

directly administered by its lead agency, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in 

partnership with the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, as the lead planning agency for the 

Hackensack Meadowlands District. The New Jersey CMP is based on three major laws: the Coastal Area 

Facilities Review Act, the Wetlands Act of 1970, and the Waterfront Development Law.

Concerted coastal management efforts began in New Jersey in 1970 with the passage of the Wetlands 

Act of 1970, followed by the Coastal Area Facility Review Act in 1973. In response to the Federal 

CZMA of 1972, New Jersey developed and gained Federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal 

Management program, which addresses the complex coastal ecosystem as a whole, integrating goals and 

standards for protection/enhancement of natural resources, for appropriate land use and development, and 

for public access to and use of coastal resources. The Program brought together the above laws as well as 

the Waterfront Development Law, the Public Trust Doctrine for access to and use of State-owned 

tidelands and the regulatory activities of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission.

The regulatory authority of the New Jersey CMP has evolved over the years through amendments to 

the coastal zone management rules and the Coastal Permit Program rules. In addition, the Freshwater 

Wetlands Protection Act and implementing rules have been incorporated into the Program. The 

non-regulatory coastal Non-Point Pollution Control Program, recently developed as required by the 

CZMA, is also being integrated into the Program. 

New Jersey’s coastal zone encompasses tidal and non-tidal waters, waterfronts, and inland areas. The 

coastal zone includes the Hudson River from the interstate border with New York and related tidal waters, 

south to Raritan Bay. It continues along the Raritan Bay then extends south from Sandy Hook to Cape 
B-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

May Point encompassing the State territorial waters of the Atlantic Ocean and associated tidal water 

bodies. From Cape May Point, the coastal zone trends north to Trenton and it contains waters of the 

Delaware Bay and River and includes tidal portions of their tributaries. Upland areas along these tidal 

waterways are included within the coastal zone.

New Jersey’s coastal zone boundary encompasses approximately 1,800 miles (2,897 kilometers) of 

tidal coastline, including 126 miles (203 kilometers) along the Atlantic oceanfront from Sandy Hook to 

Cape May. It ranges in width from 100 ft (30 meters) to 16.5 miles (26.6 kilometers). 

For Federal Consistency, the State of New Jersey requires a detailed description of all proposed 

federally licensed or permitted activities and facilities for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities that

significantly affect the coastal zone. More information regarding the New Jersey CMP and its Federal 

consistency process can be found at the New Jersey CMP website (New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, 2012).

2. STATE OF DELAWARE’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act was passed in 1971 and provides to the Secretary of the Department of

Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board 

the authority to promulgate regulations to carry out the requirements contained within the Act. Delaware 

has defined its Coastal Management Area as the entire State for the purposes of the federally approved 

CMP. The management of Delaware’s coastal resources is shared by a number of entities within DNREC 

including the Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP) and the Delaware National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (DNERR). These programs help to preserve, protect, develop and enhance the State’s 

coastal resources and resolve conflicts related to coastal zone issues. Functions of the DCMP include 

management of coastal resources through research projects, education and grant programs, and policy 

development; administration of the Coastal Zone Federal Consistency Certification program; special area 

management planning; and providing technical assistance to State and local governments for local land 

use planning. The function of DNERR is to preserve and manage the natural resources within the 

Reserve and to promote informed coastal decision-making. 

In 2004, the DCMP was responsible for the State’s Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 

Program (CELCP) development. The CELCP is a land acquisition program funded by NOAA that 

provides grants to eligible State agencies and local governments to acquire property or conservation 

easements from willing sellers within a State's coastal zone or coastal watershed boundary. 

The State of Delaware requires a detailed description and the coastal zone effects, objective, and 

schedule for all activities associated with a project; an analysis of the project’s likely coastal zone effects 

and a description of how it will comply with applicable Coastal Zone Management policies; and an 

evaluation of the relevant enforceable policies of the DCMP. Individual exploration activities on the OCS 

with foreseeable impacts to Delaware’s coastal resources or uses are subject to review to ensure 

compliance with Delaware’s coastal management policies. As applicable geological and geophysical 

(G&G) projects are submitted for a Federal consistency determination, the DCMP will review potential 

impacts. The details of the survey type, location, and equipment used will dictate the State’s position on 

each project. Supporting information can include copies of Federal permit applications, construction 

plans, environmental assessments or environmental impact statements, monitoring data, modeling data 

and verification of other permits received. The DCMP has an updated Program and Policy Document as 

of June 2011, which serves as a guide to the Delaware’s coastal consistency process, and can be found at

DNREC’s website (DNREC, 2012).

3. STATE OF MARYLAND’S COASTAL PROGRAM

Maryland's Coastal Program, established by executive order and approved in 1978, is a network of 

State laws and policies designed to protect coastal and marine resources. Maryland’s coastal zone 

includes 16 counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Charles, Cecil, Dorchester, Harford, 

Kent, Prince George’s, Queene Anne’s, Somerset, St. Mary's, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester), 

Baltimore City, the Chesapeake Bay, other coastal bays, and the boundary extends to the limit of 

Maryland’s 3-mile (5-kilometer) jurisdiction in the Atlantic Ocean. Through partnerships and funding to 

local governments, State agencies, non-profit organizations, and universities, the Coastal Program 
State Coastal Zone Management Programs B-3

addresses a variety of coastal issues including provision of public access, nonpoint source pollution 

reduction, coastal hazards mitigation, habitat and living resources protection and growth management.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the lead agency for the State’s CMP. Within DNR, 

the Coastal Zone Management Division of the Watershed Services Unit is the lead agency for the CMP. 

The Federal consistency requirements are carried out by the Coastal Zone Consistency Division in the 

Wetlands and Waterways Program of the Water Management Administration (WMA) in the Maryland 

Department of the Environment. WMA is responsible for coordinating the Federal consistency review 

with appropriate State agencies, consolidating the State’s comments, and forwarding the State’s response 

and decision to the appropriate applicant. Maryland does not require a separate coastal zone management

application for, but requires that applicants for actions including OCS-related permits or approvals must 

certify that their proposed activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the State’s CMP. 

Typically, either the Federal permits and licenses or the Joint Federal/State Permit Application will be 

reviewed for consistency with the CMP. The State’s permit authorization for permitted activities will 

include the required Federal consistency decision. A guide to Maryland’s coastal consistency program

(Ghigiarelli, 2004) can be found at Maryland’s DNR website. 

4. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA’S COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM

The Virginia CZM Program was established in 1986 through an Executive Order to protect and 

manage Virginia’s “coastal zone.” The Program is a network of State agencies and local governments

through which the coastal resources of Virginia are managed. The network consists of 13 State agencies 

and local governments including the Marine Resources Commission; Department of Environmental 

Quality Lead coordinating agency; Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Department of 

Conservation and Recreation; Department of Health; Tidewater Cities and Counties; Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Affairs; Department of Forestry; Department of Historic Resources; 

Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy; Department of Transportation; Economic Development 

Partnership; and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 

Virginia’s coastal zone encompasses 29 counties, 15 cities, and 42 incorporated towns and all of the 

waters therein, and out to, the three nautical mile Territorial Sea boundary, including all of Virginia's 

Atlantic coast watershed as well as parts of the Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle-Pamlico Sound 

watersheds.

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) serves as the lead agency for Virginia's networked 

CZM Program and helps agencies and localities to develop and implement coordinated coastal policies 

and solve coastal management problems while Coastal Policy Teams (CPTs) facilitate cooperation among 

the State agencies and local governments. The CPT members represent all of Virginia's key CZM 

partners and provide a forum for discussion and resolution of cross-cutting coastal resource management 

issues. Virginia’s eight coastal planning district commissions (PDCs) also participate in the

implementation of the Virginia CZM Program by providing a link between the State agencies and

87 localities that constitute Virginia's network of coastal resource managers. A representative from each 

PDC serves on the Virginia CZM Program’s CPT. Virginia’s eight PDCs are Accomack-Northampton 

Planning District Commission, Crater Planning District Commission, Hampton Roads Planning District 

Commission, Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission, Northern Neck Planning District 

Commission, Northern Virginia Regional Commission, George Washington Regional Commission, and 

Richmond Regional Planning District Commission. 

For Federal consistency review, Virginia requires an adequate description including aspects of the 

project that may cause direct or indirect environmental impacts, objective, and schedule for all activities 

associated with a project; an evaluation that includes a set of findings relating to the probable coastal 

effects of the proposed project and its associated facilities to the relevant enforceable policies of the 

Virginia CZM Program. Further information on the Virginia consistency determination process may be 

found at DEQ’s website (Virginia DEQ, 2011).
B-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

5. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM

The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was created in 1974. The CAMA 

established the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), required local land use planning in 20 coastal 

counties, and provided for a program for regulating development. The North Carolina Coastal 

Management Program was federally approved in 1978. The CRC administers the CAMA, establishes 

policies for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, and adopts implementing rules for both 

CAMA and the North Carolina Dredge and Fill Act. The commission also designates areas of 

environmental concern, adopts rules and policies for coastal development within those areas, and certifies 

local land-use plans. As part of this program, the CRC designated “Areas of Environmental Concern” 

within the 20 coastal counties and set rules for managing development within these areas. 

The Division of Coastal Management (DCM), in the Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, provides staffing services to the CRC, implements CRC rules, and issues CAMA permits. 

DCM is the lead agency of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program and implements and 

supervises all the various CZMPs in the State. North Carolina's coastal zone includes 20 coastal counties 

(Beaufort, Hertford, Bertie, Hyde, Brunswick, New Hanover, Camden, Onslow, Carteret, Pamlico, 

Chowan, Pasquotank, Craven, Pender, Currituck, Perquimans, Dare, Tyrrell, Gates, and Washington) that 

in whole or in part are adjacent to, adjoining, intersected or bounded by the Atlantic Ocean.

The consistency review process can be divided into two classifications, one for Federal activities and 

the other for non-Federal projects that require a Federal permit and/or license. For non-Federal projects, a 

Consistency Certification document must be submitted that demonstrates how the proposed project would 

be considered consistent with the State’s Coastal program. The procedures for making this submission 

are contained in 15 CFR part 930 subpart D and further information on the North Carolina coastal zone 

management process can be found at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (2010) website. 

For Federal consistency, any project must comply with the key elements of North Carolina’s Coastal 

Management Program such as the CAMA, the State's Dredge and Fill Law, Chapter 7 of Title 15A of 

North Carolina's Administrative Code, regulations passed by the CRC, and local land use plans certified 

by the CRC. 

6. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA’S COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM

The South Carolina CMP was established under the guidelines of the National Coastal Zone 

Management Act (1972) as a State-Federal partnership to comprehensively manage coastal resources. It

was authorized in 1977 under South Carolina’s Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act (SC Code Ann. 

§§ 48-39-10 et seq.) with the goal of achieving balance between the appropriate use, development, and 

conservation of coastal resources in the best interest of all citizens of the State. 

The South Carolina Coastal Program established a permanent South Carolina Coastal Council; 

provided for the development and administration of a comprehensive Coastal Management Program; set 

up a permitting process for activities occurring in the four “critical areas” of the coastal zone (tidelands, 

coastal waters, beaches, and primary oceanfront sand dunes); and provided a mechanism for State and 

local agency consistency with the State's approved Coastal Management Program throughout the coastal 

zone.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management (DHEC-OCRM) is the designated State coastal management agency and is 

responsible for implementing the approved South Carolina CZMP through the authorities specified in the 

Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act (SC Code Ann. §§ 48-39-110 et seq.); the DHEC Coastal Division 

Regulations and the enforceable policies of the South Carolina Coastal Program Document.

The DHEC-OCRM has direct permitting authority for proposed activities within the “critical areas” 

of the coast. The DHEC-OCRM also has broader management authority over activities within the 

8-county Coastal Zone (Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, and 

Georgetown) through consistency certification of both Federal and State permits, Federal licenses, and 

requests for funding assistance. The “critical areas” receive more intensive attention through a direct 
State Coastal Zone Management Programs B-5

permitting system, while the remainder of the coastal zone is managed through cooperation with other 

State and local agencies.

The burden of implementing the South Carolina CMP rests not only with the Coastal Council but also 

with all other State and local agencies and commissions. Seventeen State agencies, including the 

Archeology Institute; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; South Carolina 

Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; South Carolina Forestry Commission; South Carolina 

Land Resources Conservation Commission; South Carolina State Ports Authority; South Carolina Water 

Resources Commission; and the South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department, exercise 

authority over the use of coastal resources, specific areas in the coastal zone, or activities in the coastal 

zone. Memoranda of Agreement are used to effectively coordinate all State agency activities with the 

CMP. 

South Carolina requires a detailed description of the proposed activities and their associated facilities, 

objective, and schedule for all activities associated with a project; a brief assessment relating the probable 

coastal zone effects of the activities; and specific information on onshore support base, support vessels, 

shallow hazards, oil-spill response, wastes and discharges, transportation activities, and air emissions; and 

all relevant State and/or local government permits. 

7. STATE OF GEORGIA’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

In 1992, the State of Georgia initiated the development of the Georgia Coastal Management Program 

(GCMP). The Georgia General Assembly authorized the GCMP with the passage of the Georgia Coastal 

Management Act (O.C.G.A.12-5-320 et. seq.) in April 1997, and designated the Georgia DNR, Coastal 

Resources Division (CDR) as the lead agency for administering the GCMP. NOAA subsequently 

approved the Program in January 1998, at which time Georgia became the 32nd State participating in the 

National CZMP.

In 1992, the GCMP was advised by a 25-member Coastal Zone Advisory Committee appointed by 

the Governor of Georgia. The Committee was made up of a diverse cross-section of the coastal Georgia 

citizenry with the goal of providing public input throughout the development of the GCMP. In 1994, a 

new Coastal Advisory Committee was appointed by the Commissioner of the DNR to review the draft 

Program Document, to assist with public education throughout the program development process, and to 

provide technical assistance. In 1997, the committee was expanded to increase participation from 

interested local governments. Finally, in 2003, the Committee was revamped and reauthorized by the 

Commissioner of the DNR as the Coastal Advisory Council with by-laws and an appointed membership. 

The Council is charged with developing annual themes and funding criteria for the Coastal Incentive 

Grant Program, and providing a communication loop between the CZMP and coastal citizens.

The GCMP consists of 33 State codes, which constitute the enforceable policies and is administered 

by the DNR, CRD. The Program works with coastal local governments and other State and Federal 

agencies to enhance service to the public, increase coordination and communication, provide assistance 

with the Program, among its many other activities. The Program also implements the Georgia Coastal 

Marshlands Protection Act (O.C.G.A. 12-5-280), Shore Protection Act (O.C.G.A. 12-5-230), and 

Revocable License Program (O.C.G.A. 50-16-61).

For effective coastal management, the GCMP encompasses all tidally influenced water bodies and all 

areas economically tied to coastal resources including such industries as shrimping, crabbing, recreational 

fishing, tourism, shipping, and manufacturing. The GCMP’s service area includes the following 

11 counties: Brantley, Bryan, Camden, Charlton, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, 

and Wayne. Within the 11 counties, all waters of the State including the coastal ocean to the limit of the 

State’s jurisdiction (3 nautical miles [3.5 miles; 5.6 kilometers]), and all submerged lands are part of the 

coastal area.

As lead agency for the GCMP, the CRD conducts several functions including resource management, 

ecological monitoring, permitting, technical assistance (such as Best Management Practices), and Federal 

consistency review. Additional activities covered by the Program include Outreach and Education, 

Coastal Nonpoint Source (6217) Program, and Coastal Incentive Grants. Local, State, and Federal 

agencies perform their respective functions in accordance with the GCMP and coordinated with the DNR. 

In addition, research institutes and other organizations assist in information gathering and analysis with 

coastal resource issues.
B-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Activities implemented through the Coastal Management Network are divided into Local 

Governments, State Agencies, and Federal Agencies. Local governments assist in long-term planning, 

economic development, and natural resource protection through preparation and implementation of their 

respective comprehensive plans, local laws, and zoning regulations, as well as through their chambers of 

commerce and economic development authorities. State agencies continue to administer their respective 

coastal management efforts as defined by existing Georgia State law. Memoranda of Agreement between 

the CRD and other State agencies with regulatory authority in the coastal area help ensure that all 

agencies act in accordance with the policies of the GCMP. State agencies involved in the GCMP include 

the CRD; Department of Community Affairs; Department of Human Resources; Environmental 

Protection Division; Georgia Department of Transportation; Georgia Forestry Commission; Georgia Ports 

Authority; Historic Preservation Division; Jekyll Island Authority; Office of the Secretary of State, Parks, 

Recreation; and Historic Sites Division; Public Service Commission, and Wildlife Resources Division

(WRD). The Georgia DNR, WRD Nongame Section serves as Georgia's Coordinating Agency for 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and coastal and marine birds. Federal agencies continue to administer their 

respective programs as they are renewed for consistency with the GCMP. The following Federal agencies 

are involved in the GCMP: Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Lands Management; Coast Guard; 

Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; Environmental Protection Agency; Federal Aviation 

Administration; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Federal Highway Administration; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Fish and Wildlife Service; 

General Services Administration; General Services Administration; Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM); National Park Service; and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

For Federal consistency review, the State of Georgia requires a detailed description of the proposed 

activity, its expected effects upon the land or water uses or natural resources of Georgia’s coastal zone, 

and an evaluation of the proposed activity in light of applicable enforceable policies. 

8. STATE OF FLORIDA’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

For purposes of the CZMA, the State of Florida’s coastal zone includes the area encompassed by the

State’s 67 counties and its territorial seas. Lands owned by the Federal Government and the Seminole

and Miccosukee Indian tribes are not included in the State’s coastal zone; however, Federal activities in

or outside the coastal zone, including those on Federal or tribal lands, that affect any land or water or

natural resource of the State’s coastal zone are subject to review by Florida under the CZMA. The

Florida Coastal Management Act, codified as Chapter 380, Part II, Florida Statutes, authorized the

development of a CZMP. In 1981, the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) was approved by 

NOAA.

The policies identified by the State of Florida as being enforceable in the FCMP are the 24 statutes 

that NOAA approved for incorporation in the State’s program. The 2010 Florida Statutes are the most 

recent version approved by NOAA and include the listing of OCSLA permits under Subpart E; and the 

addition of draft environmental assessments and environmental impact statements as necessary data and 

information for Federal consistency review.

A network of 10 State agencies and five regional water management districts implement the FCMP’s 

24 statutes. The water management districts are responsible for water quantity and quality throughout the 

State’s watersheds. The State agencies include the following: the Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP), the lead agency for the FCMP and the State’s chief environmental regulatory agency 

and steward of its natural resources; the Department of Economic Opportunity, which serves as the 

State’s land planning agency; the Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health, which, among 

other responsibilities, regulates on-site sewage disposal; the Department of State, Division of Historical 

Resources, which protects historic and archaeological resources; the Division of Emergency 

Management, which ensures that Florida is prepared to respond to emergencies; the Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, which protects and regulates fresh and saltwater fisheries, marine mammals, 

and birds and upland species, including protected species and the habitat used by these species; the 

Department of Transportation, which is charged with the development, maintenance, and protection of the 

transportation system; the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which manages State 

forests and administers aquaculture and mosquito control programs; the Florida Building Commission, 
State Coastal Zone Management Programs B-7

which is responsible for the adoption of the Florida Building Code; and the Governor’s Office of 

Planning and Budget, which plays a role in the comprehensive planning process.

The DEP is designated as the lead agency for the FCMP pursuant to the CZMA 14. The DEP’s 

Office of Intergovernmental Programs is charged with overseeing the State’s CMP and coordinates the 

review of OCS plans with FCMP member agencies to ensure that the plan is consistent with applicable 

State enforceable policies and the Governor’s responsibilities under the Act. The OCS is a jurisdictional 

term used to describe those submerged lands (sea bed and subsoil) that lie seaward of State water 

boundaries (3 nautical miles off the east coast). An OCS plan is any plan for offshore exploration; 

development of oil, natural gas, and other mineral resources; or production activity that is conducted in 

any area leased under the OCSLA. The Federal Government manages natural resources on the OCS, 

while the States manage the resources directly off their coasts.

The State of Florida requires an adequate description, objective, and schedule for all activities 

associated with a project; specific information on the natural resources potentially affected by the 

proposed activities; and specific information on onshore support base, support vessels, shallow hazards, 

oil-spill response, wastes and discharges, transportation activities, and air emissions; and a Federal 

consistency certification, assessment, and findings. As identified by the State of Florida, the 

State-enforceable policies that must be addressed for OCS activities are found at the BOEM website 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2011). 

9. REFERENCES CITED

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2012. Delaware Coastal 

Management Program. Internet website: http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/coastal/Pages/

FederalConsistency.aspx. Accessed August 24, 2012.

Ghigiarelli, E. 2004. A guide to Maryland’s Coastal Zone Management Program Federal consistency 

process. Internet website: http://dnr.maryland.gov/ccs/pdfs/fed_consistency_guide.pdf. Accessed 

October 5, 2011.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. Coastal Management Program. Internet 

website: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/czm_program.html. Last updated December 19, 2007. 

Accessed January 3, 2013.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2010. CAMA Permits: Federal 

consistency. Internet website: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Permits/consist.htm. Accessed October 5, 

2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean & Coastal Resource 

Management. 2008. CZMA Program change rulemaking. Internet website: http://

coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/programchange.html. Accessed October 5, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. State coastal zone 

boundaries. Internet website: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/

StateCZBoundaries.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2011. Coastal Zone Management 

Program policies for the Gulf of Mexico States applicable to Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) plan 

filings. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/EnvironmentalAssessment/CZMA/CZM-Program-Policies-for-GOM-States-pdf.aspx. Accessed October 5, 2011.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Federal consistency information package. 

Internet website: http://www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/EnvironmentalImpactReview/

FederalConsistencyReviews.aspx. Accessed July 9, 2012. 

APPENDIX C 

EXISTING REGULATIONS,

PROTECTIVE MEASURES, AND MITIGATION

Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ C-1

2. EXISTING REGULATIONS ........................................................................................................... C-1

2.1. G&G Requirements ................................................................................................................. C-1

2.2. BOEM Stipulations, Mitigation, and Protective Measures...................................................... C-4

3. PROTECTIVE MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................... C-5

3.1. Measures Applicable to All Surveys........................................................................................ C-7

3.1.1. Guidance for Vessel Strike Avoidance ....................................................................... C-7

3.1.2. Guidance for Marine Debris Awareness..................................................................... C-9

3.1.3. Avoidance of Sensitive Seafloor Resources.............................................................. C-10

3.1.4. Guidance for Activities In or Near National Marine Sanctuaries ............................. C-11

3.1.5. Guidance for Military and NASA Coordination ....................................................... C-12

3.2. Mitigation for Seismic Airgun Surveys................................................................................. C-16

3.2.1. Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales............................................... C-16

3.2.2. Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol............................................................................... C-18

3.3. HRG Survey Protocol ............................................................................................................ C-23

3.3.1. Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales............................................... C-23

3.3.2. HRG Survey Protocol ............................................................................................... C-23

3.4. Summary of Visual Observer Requirements.......................................................................... C-30

4. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES INCLUDED IN ALTERNATIVE B ..................... C-32

4.1. Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales........................................... C-32

4.2. Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles Offshore Brevard County, Florida ................... C-36

4.3. Geographic Separation between Simultaneous Seismic Airgun Surveys.............................. C-38

4.4. Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol with Required Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring ......... C-38

4.5. HRG Survey Protocol with Required Use of Additional Monitoring Technologies 

During Nighttime Operations................................................................................................. C-38

5. OTHER MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT NOT 

SELECTED..................................................................................................................................... C-39

5.1. Expanded Exclusion Zone (160 dB) for Seismic Airgun Surveys........................................ C-39

5.2. Active Acoustic Monitoring................................................................................................... C-39

5.3. Aerial Surveys........................................................................................................................ C-40

5.4. Autonomous Underwater Vehicles........................................................................................ C-41

5.5. Equipment Power Down ........................................................................................................ C-42

6. NON-AIRGUN ALTERNATIVES AND RELATED MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT 

NOT SELECTED ........................................................................................................................... C-42

6.1. Marine Vibroseis (Vibrators)................................................................................................. C-43

6.1.1. Hydraulic................................................................................................................... C-43

6.1.2. Electric ...................................................................................................................... C-44
C-iv Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Page

6.2. Low-Frequency Acoustic Source (patented).......................................................................... C-46

6.3. Deep-Towed Acoustics/Geophysics System.......................................................................... C-46

6.4. Low-Frequency Passive Seismic Methods for Exploration ................................................... C-47

6.5. Low-Impact Seismic Array.................................................................................................... C-48

6.6. Fiber Optic Receivers............................................................................................................. C-48

6.7. Airgun Modifications to Lessen Impacts............................................................................... C-49

6.7.1. Airgun Silencers........................................................................................................ C-49

6.7.2. Bubble Curtains......................................................................................................... C-49

6.7.3. E-source Airguns....................................................................................................... C-49

7. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................... C-50

8. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................... C-52

ATTACHMENT 1: SEISMIC AIRGUN SURVEY PROTOCOL........................................................ C-60

ATTACHMENT 2: HRG SURVEY PROTOCOL................................................................................ C-68
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-v 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure C-1. Area of Interest for the Proposed Action. ....................................................................... C-2

Figure C-2. Summary of Speed Restrictions and Locations for Vessel Operators to Comply 

with the Right Whale Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105)................................. C-8

Figure C-3. Time-Area Closures under Alternative A. .................................................................... C-17

Figure C-4. Time-Area Closures under Alternative B. .................................................................... C-35

Figure C-5. Time-Area Closures Offshore Brevard County under Alternative B............................ C-37

Figure HRG-1. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under 

Alternative A................................................................................................................. C-72

Figure HRG-2. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under 

Alternative B................................................................................................................. C-72

Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table C-1. Federal Regulations Applicable to Prelease and Postlease Activities by Mineral 

Resource of Interest ............................................................................................................ C-1

Table C-2. Applicability of Mitigation Measures to G&G Survey Types under Alternative A ........... C-6

Table C-3. Acoustic Characteristics of Airgun Arrays Included in the Proposed Action................... C-19

Table C-4. Estimated Ranges (m) for Level A Harassment of Cetaceans by Airgun Arrays 

Based on the NMFS Level A Criterion............................................................................. C-20

Table C-5. Acoustic Characteristics of Representative Electromechanical Sound Sources 

Included in the Programmatic EIS.................................................................................... C-24

Table C-6. Estimated Ranges for Level A and B Harassment of Cetaceans by 

Electromechanical Sources Based on the NMFS 180-dB and 160-dB Criteria ................ C-25

Table C-7. Observer Requirements for G&G Survey Types.............................................................. C-31

Table C-8. Applicability of Time-Area Closures and Other Mitigation to G&G Survey Types 

under Alternative B ........................................................................................................... C-33

Table C-9. Estimated Ranges (m) for Level B Harassment of Cetaceans by Airgun Arrays 

Based on the NMFS 160-dB Criterion.............................................................................. C-39

Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1D one-dimensional

2D two-dimensional

3D three-dimensional

4D four-dimensional

AAM active acoustic monitoring

AN(SW)T ambient-noise (surfacewave) 

tomography

AOI Area of Interest

AUV autonomous underwater vehicle

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management

BSEE Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COA conditions of approval

DLI daylight imaging

DMA Dynamic Management Area

DoD Department of Defense

DTAGS deep-towed acoustics/geophysics 

system

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAZ full azimuth

G&G geological and geophysical

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular 

Concern

HRG high-resolution geophysical

HyMAS hydrocarbon microtremor analysis

IAGC International Association of

Geophysical Contractors

ITA Incidental Take Authorization

IVI Industrial Vehicles International, 

Inc.

LACS low level acoustic combustion 

source

LET local earthquake tomography

LFS low-frequency spectroscopy

LFPS low frequency passive seismic

LISA low impact seismic array

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

MPA Marine Protected Area

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMML National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OBS ocean bottom seismometer

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

PAM passive acoustic monitoring

PGS Petroleum Geo-Services

PSO protected species observers

SEL sound exposure level

SMA Seasonal Management Area

SWA surface-wave amplitude

TTS temporary threshold shift 

UAS unmanned aircraft system

U.S.C. United States Code

USDOI U.S. Dept. of the Interior

WAZ wide azimuth

Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-1 

1. INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing to authorize geological and 

geophysical (G&G) activities in support of its oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals 

programs in Federal waters of the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and adjacent 

State waters. The Area of Interest (AOI) for the proposed action 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 648 km (350 nmi) from shore (Figure C-1). 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. 

All G&G activities authorized by BOEM must comply with existing laws and regulations as 

described in Chapter 1 of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These include 

measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts of G&G activities. Compliance with existing laws and 

regulations – by BOEM as well as individual operators, when required – may result in additional 

measures or changes to the measures described here. In addition, a suite of protective measures is

included in the proposed action as described in Chapter 2 of the Programmatic EIS. This appendix 

describes and discusses the rationale for the measures selected for this program. It also describes 

measures that were considered but not selected, including measures and technologies identified for 

possible future use when proven effective and feasible.

2. EXISTING REGULATIONS

This section identifies mitigation or protective measures already in place as a result of current G&G 

requirements, including G&G operator compliance with lease stipulations and other protective measures, 

as well as applicable guidance documents. Requirements and existing mitigation or protective measures 

are included in the proposed action.

2.1. G&G REQUIREMENTS

Pursuant to 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 551.4, a permit must be obtained to conduct 

prelease geological or geophysical exploration for oil, gas, and sulphur resources. Authorizations for the 

exploration for other minerals in support of competitive leasing are granted pursuant to requirements 

outlined in 30 CFR § 580.3. Requirements for renewable energy are outlined in 30 CFR part 585. Permit 

applications must be submitted to BOEM in accordance with the requirements outlined in 30 CFR § 551.5 

and 30 CFR § 551.6 and are explained further in applicable Letters to Permittees. The Letter to 

Permittees dated January 20, 1989, specifies forms and maps, stipulations, and special provisions 

applicable to most permit activity. The 30 CFR part 551 regulations do not apply to G&G activities 

conducted by, or on behalf of, a lessee on a leased block. Such G&G activities are governed by 30 CFR § 

550.201 regulations and by applicable Notices to Lessees and Operators. Table C-1 identifies the 

appropriate Federal regulations and their applicability to select mineral resources and activity phase.

Table C-1 

 

Federal Regulations Applicable to Prelease and Postlease Activities

by Mineral Resource of Interest

Regulatory Citation Mineral Resource Activity Phase

30 CFR part 550 Oil, gas, and sulphur Postlease (i.e., on-lease)

30 CFR part 551 Oil, gas, and sulphur Prelease or off-lease exploration or 

scientific research

30 CFR part 580a All minerals exclusive of oil, gas, and sulphur Prelease (prospecting)

30 CFR part 585 Renewable energy Postlease a 30 CFR part 580 regulations apply only to G&G activities in support of competitive leasing. For noncompetitive 

leasing for public works, authorizations are issued pursuant to Section 11 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act. 
C-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure C-1. Area of Interest for the Proposed Action.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-3 

Geological and geophysical explorations for mineral resources may not be conducted in the OCS 

without an approved authorization unless such activities are being conducted pursuant to a lease issued or 

maintained under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Separate authorizations must be 

obtained for either G&G explorations for mineral resources.

The OCSLA directs the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) to ensure that G&G data are 

obtained in a technically safe and environmentally sound manner. Regulations at 30 CFR § 551.6 state 

that permit holders for G&G activities must not

• interfere with or endanger operations under any lease, right-of-way, easement, 

right-of-use, notice, or permit issued or maintained under the Act; 

• cause harm or damage to life (including fishes and other aquatic life), property, or to the 

marine, coastal, or human environment; 

• cause harm or damage to any mineral resource (in areas leased or not leased); 

• cause pollution; 

• disturb archaeological resources; 

• create hazardous or unsafe conditions; or 

• unreasonably interfere with or cause harm to other uses of the area.

Geological and geophysical operators conducting activities under 30 CFR part 551 must immediately 

report to the Director, BOEM, when

• hydrocarbon occurrences are detected; 

• environmental hazards are encountered that constitute an imminent threat to human life 

or property; or

• activities occur that adversely affect the environment, aquatic life, archaeological 

resources, or other uses of the area in which the exploration or scientific research 

activities are conducted. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) added Section 8(p)(1)(C) to the OCSLA, which 

mandated that the Secretary of the Interior issue leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for the 

purpose of renewable energy development. The Secretary delegated this authority to the former Minerals 

Management Service (MMS), now BOEM. In addition to providing the authority to issue leases, 

easements, and rights-of-way, the Energy Policy Act included a requirement that any activity authorized

under this authority be carried out in a manner that provides for various factors, including the following: 

• safety; 

• protection of the environment;

• prevention of waste; 

• conservation of the natural resources of the OCS; 

• prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high 

seas, and the territorial seas; 

• consideration of any other use of the sea or seabed, including use for a fishery, a sea lane, 

a potential site of a deepwater port, or navigation;

• public notice and comment on any proposal submitted for a lease, easement, or

right-of-way under this subsection; and

• oversight, inspection, research, monitoring, and enforcement relating to a lease,

easement, or right-of-way under this subsection.

On April 22, 2009, BOEM promulgated final regulations implementing this authority at 

30 CFR part 585 (Federal Register, 2009). Under the renewable energy regulations, after a lease is 

issued, the lessee may not commence construction of meteorological or other site assessment facilities 

until a Site Assessment Plan and the site characterization survey reports are submitted to and reviewed by 

BOEM (30 CFR §§ 585.605-618). The lessee’s Site Assessment Plan must contain a description of 

environmental protection features or measures that the lessee will use. Similarly, when a grant is made 

for a right of way, or right of use and easement, the grantee may not commence construction or perform 

other site assessment activities until a General Activities Plan and site characterization survey reports are 

submitted to and reviewed by BOEM (30 CFR §§ 285.645-648).
C-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

BOEM has developed guidelines for providing G&G, hazards, and archaeological information 

pursuant to 30 CFR part 585 (USDOI, BOEM, 2012). The guidelines specify that BOEM recommends 

avoidance as a primary mitigation strategy. Avoidance strategies seek to ensure that harm or damage to 

objects of historical or archaeological significance will be less likely. 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. If an applicant, while 

conducting activities, discovers a potential archaeological resource such as the presence of a shipwreck 

(e.g., a sonar image or visual confirmation of an iron, steel, or wooden hull, wooden timbers, anchors, 

concentrations of historic objects, piles of ballast rock), prehistoric artifacts, and/or relict landforms, etc. 

within the project area, the applicant is to

• immediately halt seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities within the area of discovery; 

• notify the appropriate BOEM/Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs

Environmental Branch Chief within 72 hours (hr) of its discovery; and

• keep the location of the discovery confidential and take no action that may adversely 

affect the archaeological resource until BOEM has made an evaluation and instructs the 

applicant on how to proceed.

BOEM may require the applicant to conduct additional investigations to determine if the resource is 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

In addition, BOEM has published guidelines for providing avian species, benthic habitat, and marine 

mammals and sea turtles survey information for renewable energy projects on the Atlantic OCS (USDOI, 

BOEM, 2013). These guidelines provide recommendations for complying with information requirements 

of BOEM’s renewable energy regulations outlined within 30 CFR part 585 subpart F. 

2.2. BOEM STIPULATIONS, MITIGATION, AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES

BOEM currently requires operators to comply with a series of stipulations and protective measures 

during G&G activities. These requirements effectively represent mitigation measures designed to reduce 

or avoid impacts to sensitive resources. Such measures are implemented through regulations governing 

prelease and postlease G&G activities. Key points consist of the following:

• Explosives Prohibition: Explosives cannot be used for G&G activities except under 

written authorization from the Regional Supervisor. Further protective measures 

(including Endangered Species Act [ESA] Section 7 consultation with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) and a Marine Mammal Protection Act [MMPA] 

authorization apply in the event that explosives are proposed for use.

• Archaeological Resources: The permittee must report discovery of any archaeological 

resource (i.e., shipwreck/prehistoric site) to BOEM and take precautions to protect the 

resource from operational activities.

• Seismic Safety: All pipes, buoys, and other markers used in connection with seismic 

work must be properly flagged and lighted according to the navigation rules of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard.

There are no active oil and gas leases in the Atlantic OCS. In the event that leasing occurs during the 

period of the proposed action, BOEM may add measures to mitigate the impacts of lease-specific 

activities in the form of lease stipulations. In addition, BOEM provides additional guidance to lessees 

and operators through Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs), conditions of approval (COA), and best 

management practices. 

As defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), mitigation includes the following: 

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; 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-5 

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 effectively use avoidance and 

minimization as the main, and most effective, strategy for environmental protection.

BOEM assigns mitigation by imposing COA on a plan, authorization, or permit. Mitigation is the 

effect of conditioned approval, which may originate from programmatic NEPA evaluations such as this 

one, from interpretations BOEM makes of regulations in NTLs, from the site-specific review of a plan, 

authorization or permit in which additional impacts to resources need to be mitigated to the maximum 

extent practicable, or they may evolve into best management practices through common or accepted use.

Conditions of Approval enforce more than just environmental mitigations originating through the 

NEPA process and are used in many different contexts within the oil and gas, renewable energy, and 

marine minerals program areas being considered in this Programmatic EIS. Conditions of Approval are 

used to pass on other requirements or advisories to operators. Among these are the following: 

1. other approvals prerequisite to BOEM approval (i.e., CZMA); 

2. safety precautions (i.e., H2S present);

3. post-approval submittals (i.e., surveys and interpretive reports);

4. inspection requirements (i.e., pipeline pressure testing);

5. pre-deployment notifications (i.e., Department of Defense [DoD] space use or 

warning areas); and

6. reduction or avoidance of environmental impacts on resources originating from 

NEPA.

If a COA assigns a mitigation that originates from a NEPA evaluation to reduce or avoid impacts on 

biological, physical, or socioeconomic resources, it is synonymous with “protective measure” (6, above). 

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, 2007, pages 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, which may be an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an EIS. 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 and assign them as a condition for OCS permit 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.

3. PROTECTIVE MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action includes protective measures that are either applicable to all G&G surveys or 

specific survey types. The measures are listed below and their applicability to G&G survey types is 

summarized in Table C-2. Each measure is discussed in a separate subsection.
C-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table C-2 

 

Applicability of Mitigation Measures to G&G Survey Types under Alternative A 

(an “X” indicates the time-area closure or mitigation measure is applicable) 

Survey 

Type 

Time-Area Closures Other Applicable Mitigation

NARW Critical 

Habitat 

(Nov 15-Apr 15) 

Southeast &

Mid-Atlantic U. S. 

SMAs 

(Nov 1-Apr 30)

DMAs Rest of 

AOI

Seismic 

Airgun 

Protocol 

HRG 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 

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; NARW = North Atlantic Right Whale

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.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-7 

Measures applicable to all G&G surveys: 

• guidance for vessel strike avoidance;

• guidance for marine debris awareness;

• avoidance of sensitive seafloor resources; 

• guidance for activities in or near National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS); and

• guidance for military and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

coordination.

Additional measures applicable to specific survey types:

• mitigation for seismic airgun surveys (time-area closures and Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol); and

• mitigation for non-airgun HRG surveys (time-area closures and HRG Survey Protocol). 

This document was created using the best available information to identify mitigation plans for 

reducing or eliminating the potential for adverse effects. The document also notes, where applicable, 

limits to existing scientific knowledge about the known effectiveness of certain mitigations. Each 

specific authorization will require additional analyses where BOEM employs an adaptive management 

approach (see Section 7), to adjust mitigation strategy(ies) based on the best available information at that 

time.

3.1. MEASURES APPLICABLE TO ALL SURVEYS

3.1.1. Guidance for Vessel Strike Avoidance

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”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012a), which incorporates and 

expands measures from 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 2 through 7 below, to help ensure it is free of all

marine mammals and sea turtles. Visual observers monitoring solely for vessel strike 

avoidance can be crew members, trained third party observers, or a combination of 

both. They do not have specific training requirements nor will they need to be 

approved by BOEM or BSEE.

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 size,

shall transit within the 10 knot (kn) (18.5 kilometers/hour [km/h]) speed restriction in 

Dynamic Management Areas (DMA), the Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management 

Area (SMA) from November 1 through April 30, and critical habitat and Southeast 

U.S. SMA from November 15 through April 15 (Figure C-2). 

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. 
C-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure C-2. Summary of Speed Restrictions and Locations for Vessel Operators to Comply with the Right 

Whale Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105) (Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2011).
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-9 

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 meters (m) (1,640 feet [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 a 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 only re-engage engines 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 transiting, 

avoiding abrupt changes in direction until it has left the area.

5. Year-round, when ESA-listed whales other than NARWs 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 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(s) 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 ESAlisted 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

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 and NMFS within 24 hr, regardless of whether the 

injury or death was caused by their vessel.

In addition, vessel operators would be required to comply with the NMFS marine mammal and sea 

turtle viewing guidelines for the Northeast Region (USDOC, NMFS [2011a] for surveys offshore 

Delaware, Maryland, or Virginia) or the Southeast Region (USDOC, NMFS [2011b] 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.

3.1.2. 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 elimination as described in this 

NTL. The applicant will 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 
C-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

marine environment where it could affect protected species. The above-referenced NTL provides 

information that applicants may use for this awareness training.

3.1.3. 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 all G&G activities.

In addition to the cultural resources and benthic communities discussed in the following sections, 

there are significant undersea cables and infrastructure 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 cables 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.

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.

3.1.3.1. Avoidance and Reporting of 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 to 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 National Historic Preservation Act (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 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). 

If an operator discovers any archaeological resource while conducting operations authorized under a 

lease or pipeline right-of-way, operations within or that may affect the discovery must be immediately 

halted the discovery reported 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).
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-11

3.1.3.2. Avoidance of 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 will be subject to 

restrictions to protect corals and hard/live bottom resources, including requirements for mapping and 

avoidance, as well as pre-deployment photographic surveys of areas where bottom-founded 

instrumentation and appurtenances are to be deployed. BOEM Renewable Energy Program has 

developed biological survey protocols that would provide guidance for these site-specific surveys.

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; deepwater coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC); 

deepwater Marine Protected Areas (MPA); Monitor and Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuaries

(NMS); the Charleston Bump area; and the walls of submarine canyons. These benthic features are 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.1.2 of the Programmatic EIS. 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 at a minimum include those currently required by BOEM 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 features in greater 

water depths are protected by NTL 2009-G40 (“Deepwater Benthic Communities”) (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 of 610 m (2,000 ft) are required for drilling discharge locations and 76 m (250 ft) 

from the location of all other proposed seafloor disturbances. The application of similar setbacks as 

default buffer zones would be expected when G&G activities take place in the AOI.

3.1.4. 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 of the 

Programmatic EIS for brief descriptions). BOEM would not authorize seafloor-disturbing activities 

within the boundaries of an NMS. 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 at the time the 

action is before BOEM and in consultation with the Sanctuary Manager. 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. Chapter 1.6.15 of the Programmatic 

EIS provides information about the NMSA consultation process.

All BOEM authorizations for G&G activities would include instructions to minimize impacts on 

NMS resources. 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 Sanctuary. Additionally, if proposed activities involve seafloordisturbing activities near an NMS or moving the surface marker buoys for the Sanctuary, the operator 

would be required to contact the Sanctuary Manager for instructions. In addition, as part of the process 

for site-specific activities BOEM and BSEE’s Environmental Enforcement Division will conduct future 

coordination with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). These coordination 

activities will include the discussion on notification of divers and boaters in the region, beyond the Notice 

to Mariners, discussion of setback from the Monitor and Gray’s Reef NMSs and environmental 

monitoring and enforcement efforts.
C-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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, 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, 

2011; USDOC, ONMS, 2011).

3.1.5. Guidance for Military and NASA Coordination

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 

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, 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-13

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 CFR 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 CFR 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 be issued 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 

order to avoid or minimize the effects of conflicts with potentially hazardous 

military operations.
C-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

(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 also can also be found in Chapter 3.6.7. 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, 

and provide sufficient protection for, lessee's personnel and property. Such 

suspensions or evacuations will not normally exceed twenty four (24) hours; 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-15

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 CFR 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 within individual designated operating areas, 

warning areas, and water test areas. Prior to entry into the particular operating area, 
C-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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.

3.2. MITIGATION FOR SEISMIC AIRGUN SURVEYS

Additional mitigation specifically applicable to seismic airgun surveys includes (1) a time-area 

closure for NARWs and (2) a Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. The time-area closure is intended to 

avoid most impacts from ensonification of the water column on marine mammals and sea turtles. 

Incidentally, the expanded area would prevent impacts to other species found in these areas. The protocol 

specifies mitigation measures including an acoustic exclusion zone, ramp-up requirements, visual 

monitoring by protected species observers (PSOs) prior to and during seismic airgun surveys, and array 

shutdown requirements. The purpose of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol is to minimize the potential 

for injury to marine mammals and sea turtles and to avoid most Level A harassment of marine mammals.

3.2.1. Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Although NARWs could occur anywhere within the AOI, they are most 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). Alternative A 

includes a time-area closure in this region that is intended to avoid most impacts from ensonification of 

the water column on NARWs. 

The locations and timing of the time-area closure under Alternative A are shown in Figure C-3. 

No seismic airgun surveys 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 through 

April 30. Additionally, G&G surveys using airguns would not be allowed in active DMAs. A DMA is a 

temporary management zone that is created by NMFS in response to a reliable sighting of a NARW and 

expires after 15 days unless extended (Federal Register, 2002). Airgun surveys conducted outside of the 

NARW critical habitat, SMAs, or DMAs during the time-area closures would be required to remain at a 

distance such that received levels at those boundaries do not exceed the threshold for Level B harassment, 

as determined by field verification or modeling. 

Under the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105), the Southeast U.S. SMA is 

identified with seasonal restrictions in effect from November 15 to April 15, this is a continuous area that 

extends from St. Augustine, Florida, to Brunswick, Georgia, extending 37 km (20 nmi) from shore

(Figure C-3). This time-area closure area for the Southeast U.S. SMA has been expanded with seasonal 

restrictions from November 1 to April 30. The Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA, with seasonal restrictions 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 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 C-3). 

The total closure area under Alternative A would be 7,589,594 acres (ac) (30,714 square kilometers 

[km2

]), or approximately 4 percent of the AOI. As explained in Appendix E, the time-area closure is 

estimated to avoid about two-thirds of the incidental takes of NARWs by active acoustic sound sources 

over the period of the Programmatic EIS.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-17

Figure C-3. Time-Area Closures under Alternative A.
C-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

If there are changes made to either the Southeast or the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMAs by NOAA in the 

future, the closure areas would be modified to align the closure areas with the new boundaries of the 

SMAs.

3.2.2. 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 PSOs prior to and during seismic airgun 

surveys, and array shutdown requirements. The protocol specifies the conditions under which airgun 

arrays can be started and those under which they must be shut down. It also includes the recommended 

but optional use of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) to help detect vocalizing marine mammals. The 

protocol requirements apply specifically to airguns, not electromechanical sources such as side-scan 

sonars; boomers, sparkers, and chirp subbottom profilers; and single beam or multibeam depth sounders 

that may be operating concurrently during seismic airgun surveys.

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol is provided as Attachment 1 to this Appendix. The protocol is 

similar to Joint BOEM-BSEE NTL 2012-G02 (“Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures 

and Protected Species Observer Program”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012b), with key exceptions as 

noted in the protocol. Each specific permit for seismic activities within the AOI will require additional 

analyses where BOEM may adjust mitigation based on the best available information at that time.

3.2.2.1. Rationale

The purpose of the operational measures included in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol is to 

minimize the potential for injury to marine mammals and sea turtles and to avoid most Level A 

harassment of marine mammals.

There are 39 species of marine mammals potentially occurring in the Area of Interest (AOI), as 

described in Chapter 4.2.2 of the Programmatic EIS. They include 34 species of cetaceans, 4 species of 

pinnipeds, and one sirenian (the Florida manatee). The pinnipeds (gray seal, harbor seal, harp seal, and 

hooded seal) are considered to be extralimital in the AOI and are unlikely to be exposed to underwater 

sound from seismic airgun surveys under the proposed action. Manatees are present only in inland and 

near-coastal waters along the southeast coast and are unlikely to be exposed to underwater sound from 

seismic airgun surveys under the proposed action. Incidental take calculations in Appendix E based on 

abundance data for the AOI predict zero incidental takes of pinnipeds or manatees, even without 

considering operational mitigation measures included in the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. 

For the analysis in the 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; and small airgun array (90 in3

) – this array 

was used to represent sound sources for HRG surveys that use airguns. 

Detailed acoustic characteristics of airguns are discussed in Appendix D. 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 C-3). 

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.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-19

Table C-3 

 

Acoustic Characteristics of Airgun Arrays 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 

Abbreviations: 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional; 4D = four-dimensional; WAZ = wide azimuth; VSP = 

vertical seismic profile; HRG = high-resolution geophysical. 

Source: Appendix D. 

Acoustic pulses from airguns are within the hearing range of all marine mammals in the AOI 

(Appendix H). All of the mysticetes occurring in the AOI are low-frequency cetaceans (7 Hz-22 kHz), 

and most of the odontocetes are mid-frequency cetaceans (150 Hz-160 kHz), with the exception of the 

harbor porpoise (a high-frequency cetacean, 200 Hz-180 kHz). Manatees have hearing capabilities that 

are generally similar to phocid pinnipeds, with functional hearing between about 250 Hz and ~90 kHz. 

Airgun pulses are also within the hearing range of sea turtles, whose best hearing is mainly below 

1,600 Hz (Appendix I). 

To reduce the risk of injury and Level A harassment, the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol would 

establish an exclusion zone based on the predicted range at which animals could be exposed to a received 

sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa, which is the current NMFS criterion for Level A harassment of 

cetaceans. The radius of the exclusion zone would be calculated on a survey-specific basis, but would not 

be less than 500 m (1,640 ft). This exclusion zone applies specifically to airguns, not electromechanical 

sources such as side-scan sonars; boomers, sparkers, and chirp subbottom profilers; and single beam or 

multibeam depth sounders that may be operating concurrently during seismic airgun surveys. Although 

there are no NMFS noise exposure criteria for sea turtles, the mitigation measures are expected to 

similarly reduce the risk of temporary or permanent hearing loss in sea turtles. The operational mitigation 

measures 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 NARWs (Section 3.2.1) would 

help to reduce the risk of those impacts. Key elements of the protocol are discussed in the following 

sections.

3.2.2.2. Ramp-Up

Ramp-up (also known as “soft start”) entails the gradual increase in intensity of an airgun array over a 

period of 20 min or more until maximum source levels are reached. The intent of ramp-up is to either 

avoid or reduce the potential for instantaneous hearing damage to an animal (from the sudden initiation of 

an acoustic source at full power) that might be located in close proximity to an airgun array. Increasing 

sound levels are designed to warn animals of pending seismic operations, and to allow sufficient time for 

those animals to leave the immediate area. Increasing sound levels (e.g., from an airgun array) are 

thought to be annoying or aversive to marine mammals. Under optimal conditions, sensitive individuals 

are expected to move out of the area, beyond the range where hearing damage might occur. The 

procedural design and quantitative limits for ramp-up, however, are not based on rigid analytical or 

empirical evidence, and it is not certain if marine mammals indeed interpret a survey ramp-up as a 

warning of a stressor to come, as a human might interpret. Therefore, it is used mainly as a “common 

sense” procedure, although there is little information on its effectiveness (Weir and Dolman, 2007; 

Parsons et al., 2009).

Nonetheless, ramp-up has become a standard mitigation measure in the U.S. and worldwide. The 

International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) recommends ramp-up in its seismic survey 

guidelines (IAGC, 2011). BOEM requires ramp-up procedures for seismic airgun surveys operating in 

the Gulf (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012b). 
C-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.2.2.3. Acoustic Exclusion Zone

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol includes an acoustic exclusion zone centered on the sound 

source to minimize the potential for injury to marine mammals and sea turtles and to avoid Level A 

harassment of marine mammals to the maximum extent practicable.

The radius of the exclusion zone would be based on the predicted range at which animals could be 

exposed to a received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa, which is the current NMFS criterion for 

Level A harassment of cetaceans. The radius of the exclusion zone would be calculated on a 

survey-specific basis, but would not be less than 500 m (1,640 ft). This exclusion zone applies 

specifically to airguns, not electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonars; boomers, sparkers, and 

chirp subbottom profilers; and single beam or multibeam depth sounders that may be operating 

concurrently during seismic airgun surveys.

Although the NMFS also uses a criterion of 190 dB re 1 μPa for Level A harassment of pinnipeds, 

based on the rare occurrence of pinnipeds in the AOI it is unlikely that a smaller exclusion zone based on 

the 190-dB criterion would be appropriate for any seismic airgun survey there. There are no noise 

exposure criteria for sea turtles, but a 180-dB exclusion zone is expected to prevent mortalities, injuries, 

and most auditory impacts on sea turtles as well.

Based on calculations in Appendix D and summarized in Table C-4, the 180-dB zone for a large 

airgun array (5,400 in3

) ranges from 799 to 2,109 m (2,622 to 6,920 ft), with a mean of 1,086 m 

(3,563 ft). Marine mammals can be detected at distances of up to several kilometers, depending on sea 

state and the animal’s size and behavior. Sea turtles are not likely to be detected beyond 500 m (1,640 ft). 

For HRG surveys using a small airgun array (90 in3

), the 180-dB zone ranges from 76 to 186 m 

(249 to 610 ft), with a mean of 128 m (420 ft) (Table C-4). A 500-m (1,640-ft) radius exclusion zone can 

be effectively monitored and would encompass the zone where Level A harassment could occur.

Table C-4 

 

Estimated Ranges (m) for Level A Harassment of Cetaceans by Airgun Arrays

Based on the NMFS Level A Criterion

Equipment Usage

Number 

of Scenarios 

Modeled

Statistics

NMFS Level A Criterion

180 dB re 1 μPa (rms)

Rmax R95%

5,400-in3 Airgun Array

Deep penetration seismic 

surveys, oil and gas 

exploration (2D, 3D, WAZ, 

VSP, 4D, etc.)

21

Min (m) 799 737

Max (m) 2,109 1,677

Mean (m) 1,086 930

90-in3 Airgun Array HRG surveys 21

Min (m) 76 74

Max (m) 186 177

Mean (m) 128 124

Rmax is the maximum received sound pressure level. 

R95% is the received level over 95 percent of the energy of the pulse.

Source: Appendix D. 

3.2.2.4. Acoustic Exclusion Zone Monitoring by Protected Species Observers

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol includes visual monitoring of the exclusion zone by trained 

PSOs. At least two PSOs will be required on watch aboard seismic vessels at all times during daylight 

hours (dawn to dusk – i.e., from about 30 min before sunrise to 30 min after sunset) when seismic 

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). 

Operators may only engage trained third-party observers. Training requirements are specified in the 

Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol (Attachment 1). 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-21

The main tasks of PSOs are to monitor the acoustic exclusion zone for protected species and to 

observe and document their presence and behavior. Observers search the area around the vessel using 

high-powered, pedestal-mounted, “Big Eye” binoculars, hand-held binoculars, and the unaided eye. For

larger monitoring programs with a specified visual observation platform, two observers survey for 

protected species generally using the high-powered binoculars, while a third observer searches with the 

unaided eye and occasionally hand-held binoculars, and serves as data recorder. Established visual 

monitoring methods are effective but may not be foolproof in locating every marine mammal or sea turtle 

within the designated exclusion zone (Barkaszi et al., 2012). These mitigation methods rely on trained 

and experienced observers to conscientiously work to the required protocols. If the vessel is utilizing a 

PAM system, a fourth observer will be assigned to monitor that station and communicate with the third 

observer on the visual observing platform. Data are recorded on paper sheets and/or a laptop computer 

that has direct input from the vessel’s global positioning system navigation system. Observers rotate 

among the duty stations at regular intervals, and alternate work and rest periods based upon a 

pre-determined schedule. In the event a marine mammal or sea turtle is sighted or otherwise detected 

within the impact zone, seismic operations are suspended until the animal leaves the area 

(see Attachment 1). 

Visual, shipboard monitoring is affected by limitations on sightability of individuals due to poor 

visibility (fog, elevated Beaufort sea state, nighttime operations), species detectability (cryptic species), 

and/or observer fatigue. Routine activities of marine mammals (e.g., diving duration patterns, pod size, 

overt behaviors) show considerable variability between species, thereby affecting whether or not animals 

are sighted (i.e., availability bias). During nighttime operations or during periods of reduced visibility, 

several options are available to allow for continual monitoring of the impact zone (e.g., shipboard lighting 

of waters around the vessel, use of enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment, and acoustic 

monitoring [both active and passive]). However, the efficiency of visual monitoring during nighttime 

hours, using shipboard lighting or enhanced vision equipment, is limited when compared with visual 

monitoring during daylight hours.

3.2.2.5. Shutdown Requirements

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol and HRG Survey Protocol require shutdown of the airgun array

or electromechanical equipment any time a marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within the acoustic 

exclusion zone, whether due to the animal’s movement, the vessel’s movement, or because the animal 

surfaced inside the exclusion zone. In the event of a shutdown, seismic operations and ramp-up of 

airguns would recommence only when the sighted animal has cleared the acoustic exclusion zone and no 

other marine mammals or sea turtles have been sighted within the exclusion zone for at least 60 min. 

Shutdown would not be required for delphinids approaching the vessel (or vessel’s towed equipment) that 

indicates a “voluntary approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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 as per his/her instruction. The PSO must record the details of any non-shutdowns in the 

presence of a delphinid, 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 exclusion zone has been visually inspected 

for at least 60 min to help ensure the absence of all marine mammals and sea turtles. 

3.2.2.6. Optional Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Under Alternative A, the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol strongly encourages, but does not require, 

the use of PAM to supplement visual observations during monitoring of the acoustic exclusion zone 

(see Attachment 1). This provision is similar to Joint BOEM-BSEE NTL 2012-G02 (Implementation of 

Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program) (USDOI, BOEM and 

BSEE, 2012b). PAM can be used to allow ramp-up during low visibility conditions when ramp-up would 

otherwise not be allowed. Canada and New Zealand have similar provisions (Blue Planet Marine, 2010).
C-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Marine mammals are at the greatest risk of potential injury from seismic airguns when they are 

submerged and within proximity of the airgun array. Visual monitoring methods are not fully effective 

for detecting the presence of submerged animals, and detecting surfaced animals during the night and 

during periods of high sea state and poor visibility. PAM may serve as an effective tool for detecting 

submerged and vocalizing marine mammals when they are not detectable by visual observation 

(Hedgeland et al., 2012). Inclusion of PAM does not relieve an operator of any of the mitigations 

(including visual observations) in the seismic airgun protocol with the following exception: use of PAM 

will allow ramp-up and the subsequent start of a seismic survey during times of reduced visibility 

(darkness, fog, rain, etc.) when such ramp-up otherwise would not be permitted using only visual 

observers.

There are two types of PAM systems in current use: fixed systems and towed systems. Fixed PAM 

systems have the capability to monitor underwater sounds over a wide range of spatial and temporal 

scales. There are three categories of fixed systems: autonomous recorders, radio-linked hydrophones, 

and fixed cable hydrophones. Autonomous recorders acquire and store acoustic data internally and are 

deployed semi-permanently underwater via a mooring or buoy and must be retrieved to access the data. 

They are capable of continuous recording, automatic detection/classification of sounds, and collection of 

non-acoustic data. Radio-linked hydrophone systems consist of hydrophones that are moored or fixed to 

the bottom and transmit the audio signal via radio waves to a receiving station on shore. The acoustic 

data can be monitored and processed in real or near-real time, or post-processed; however, these data are 

limited by bandwidth, range of transmission, and data transfer rates. Fixed cable hydrophone systems are 

typically located on the seafloor in a permanent configuration and can continuously send data to a 

receiving station. Fixed PAM systems are typically used for monitoring of marine mammals prior to a 

noise-generating activity (i.e., pile driving, offshore liquefied natural gas facility operation) at a fixed 

location (Bingham, 2011). For example, the Navy uses a fixed PAM system to monitor their test ranges.

Towed PAM systems were an early configuration applied to monitoring of marine mammals and are 

used with seismic airgun surveys and for close-range mitigation of the effects of other mobile activities. 

Towed systems consist of a hydrophone array, tow cable, deck cable, and data processing and monitoring 

system that processes, displays, and stores selected data. Hydrophone signals are processed for output to 

the operator with specialized pre-loaded software that has been designed to detect marine mammal click 

and whistle vocalizations (Hedgeland et al., 2012). Towed arrays have the advantage of mobility and 

large spatial coverage, and therefore can be used for monitoring when the active source is mobile or 

covering a large spatial area. However, these systems have limited directional capabilities and challenges 

from both sound sources and the receivers (e.g., an animal) being mobile. In addition, the towed systems 

have short time coverage, limited detection range, and are prone to masking problems from vessel noise, 

flow noise, and seismic source noise, including reverberation in shallow water. They also have 

limitations from ship availability, can be readily damaged, have difficulties localizing whale calls, and are 

difficult for use for detection in front of the vessel. Some of these limitations can be overcome, and new 

technology is being developed (e.g., vector sensors that can measure angles from a single point and assist 

with determining a more precise bearing of the animal) (Bingham, 2011). Every installation must be 

designed on a case-by-case basis given the requirements, environment, and resources available, and will 

need to consider the technological limitations to determine the best method for PAM, which will still need 

to be used in conjunction with visual observers, as PAM can be conducted at night when visual 

observations are not possible. 

The PAM software and hardware technologies for PAM currently exists that can perform many 

marine mammal monitoring and mitigation requirements under a wide range of operational conditions. 

However, these existing systems were not designed specifically for monitoring and mitigation for the 

offshore industrial application. No single technical approach has the ability to satisfy all or even most of 

the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation requirements of the offshore industry, and most likely an 

integrated approach is necessary. In addition, one of the limitations of PAM is that it works only if the 

animals produce sound that can be detected by the system; there are cryptic species of marine mammals 

that do not vocalize much or at all. Also, PAM is unable to simultaneously listen to all species in an area 

due to the wide range of frequencies of vocalizations. The PAM operators must be trained and 

experienced in order to successfully operate the systems. Fixed PAM technologies are more mature than 

towed PAM for mitigation and monitoring of marine mammals for the offshore industry. However, 

towed PAM has been used with some success to supplement visual monitoring of exclusion zones 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-23

(Bingham, 2011). Towed arrays have been used primarily for sperm whale work, although they have the 

disadvantage of not being able detect presence straight ahead or through the ship unless the array is towed 

deeper than the bottom of the vessel.

Although the technology for detecting and locating underwater sounds and their sources in general is 

well developed, integrated hardware and software systems using acoustics specifically designed to locate 

and track marine mammals as mitigation for seismic airgun surveys are relatively new and have only been 

commercially available in recent years.

3.3. HRG SURVEY PROTOCOL 

The HRG Survey Protocol is for surveys that use only electromechanical sources such as side-scan 

sonar; boomers, sparkers, chirp subbottom profilers; and single beam and multibeam depth sounders. 

HRG surveys using airguns operating concurrently with electromechanical acoustic sources would be 

subject to the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol described in Section 3.2. 

Mitigation applicable to non-airgun HRG surveys is specified in the HRG Survey Protocol 

(see Attachment 2). In reviewing each specific application for HRG surveys, BOEM will use the 

site-specific review to adjust mitigation based on the best available information at that time. The HRG 

Survey Protocol requirements under Alternative A can be summarized as follows:

• All HRG operators must comply with separate guidance for vessel strike avoidance 

(see Section 3.1.1). 

• If active acoustic sources will operate above 200 kHz, no additional mitigation for 

acoustic exclusion zones, PSO requirements, startup or shutdown requirements, or

time-area closures would be conditioned to authorizations.

• If at least one acoustic source will operate at frequencies at and below 200 kHz, an 

acoustic exclusion zone is required, with visual monitoring by trained PSOs and startup 

and shutdown requirements as described in the protocol.

• Acoustic sources operating at and below 30 kHz are assumed to be within the audibility 

range of NARWs. Therefore, only HRG surveys using frequencies greater than 30 kHz

would be allowed to operate within NARW critical habitat from November 15 through 

April 15 and in NARW DMAs (see Section 3.3.1). All other non-airgun HRG surveys 

would be permitted or authorized year-round throughout the AOI.

3.3.1. Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales

Only HRG surveys using frequencies greater than 30 kHz would be allowed to operate within NARW

critical habitat from November 15 through April 15, and those surveys would only occur during daylight 

hours. Surveys in NARW critical habitat using sources operating 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. 

A DMA is a temporary management zone that is created by NMFS in response to a reliable sighting 

of a NARW and expires after 15 days unless extended (Federal Register, 2002). If a DMA is established

during the course of an HRG survey, further use of all sound sources operating at and below 30 kHz in 

that DMA must be discontinued within 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 at these boundaries are no more than the Level B threshold. 

Except as noted above for HRG surveys using frequencies at and below 30 kHz, all other non-airgun 

HRG surveys would be permitted or authorized year-round throughout the AOI.

3.3.2. HRG Survey Protocol

3.3.2.1. Rationale

The purpose of the HRG Survey Protocol is to reduce the potential for acoustic impacts to marine 

mammals and sea turtles due to active acoustic sources. Based on the information reviewed in 
C-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Appendix H and Appendix I, acoustic sources operating at frequencies greater than 200 kHz are not 

likely to be within the hearing range of marine mammals or sea turtles. Therefore, there are no acoustic 

exclusion zones, PSO requirements, time-area closures, or other additional mitigation requirements for 

such surveys.

For non-airgun HRG surveys using sources operating at and below 200 kHz, the HRG Survey 

Protocol would establish an acoustic exclusion zone, require visual monitoring by trained PSOs, and 

specify startup and shutdown requirements. Ramp-up is not expected to be an effective mitigation 

measure for non-airgun HRG surveys because electromechanical sources typically are either on or off and 

are not powered up gradually. PAM would not be included as recommended mitigation in the HRG 

Survey Protocol under Alternative A.

3.3.2.2. Acoustic Exclusion Zone

An acoustic exclusion zone is required for non-airgun HRG surveys in which at least one acoustic 

source will operate at frequencies at and below 200 kHz. Important considerations in defining an acoustic 

exclusion zone (or “safe” range) include the source level, operating frequencies, pulse duration, and 

directivity of the source as well as the hearing capabilities of the receiving animals. Acoustic 

characteristics of electromechanical sources are discussed in detail in Appendix D and summarized in 

Table C-5. 

Table C-5 

 

Acoustic Characteristics of Representative Electromechanical Sound Sources Included in the Programmatic EIS

Source Broadband Source Level 

(dB re 1 μPa at 1 m)

Operating 

Frequencies

Within Hearing Range

Cetaceans Sea Turtles

Boomer 212 200 Hz–16 kHz Yes Yes

Side-Scan Sonar 226 100 kHz Yes No

400 kHz No No

Chirp Subbottom Profiler 222

3.5 kHz Yes No

12 kHz Yes No

200 kHz No No

Multibeam Depth Soundera 213 240 kHz No No a

 Single beam depth sounders may also be used for seafloor mapping, and the frequencies and source levels may 

differ. The multibeam depth sounder was selected as a representative source and is conservative from the 

standpoint of acoustic impacts. 

_____ = no auditory impacts expected because frequency is beyond hearing range.

Source: Appendix D. 

Based on a review of marine mammal hearing, Appendix H recognizes three cetacean groups: 

low-frequency cetaceans (7 Hz to 22 kHz), mid-frequency cetaceans (150 Hz to 160 kHz) and 

high-frequency cetaceans (200 Hz to 180 kHz). Boomer pulses are within the hearing range of all three 

cetacean groups. However, the operating frequency of the representative multibeam system (240 kHz) is 

above the hearing range of all three groups. 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 kHz and 12 kHz frequencies are within the 

hearing range of all three cetacean groups, but the 200 kHz frequency is above the range of all groups. 

Frequencies emitted by individual equipment may differ from these representative systems selected for 

programmatic analysis.

Sea turtles are low-frequency specialists whose best hearing is mainly below 1,600 Hz (Appendix I). 

Acoustic signals from electromechanical sources other than the boomer are not likely to be detectable by 

sea turtles. Because of the relatively low source level of the boomer as discussed below, sea turtles are 

unlikely to hear these pulses unless they are very near the source.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-25

3.3.2.2.1. Injury Ranges Calculated Using the 180-dB NMFS Criterion

To reduce the risk of injury and Level A harassment of marine mammals, the HRG Survey Protocol

would establish an acoustic exclusion zone based on the predicted range at which animals could be 

exposed to a received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa, which is the current NMFS criterion for 

Level A harassment of cetaceans. The operational mitigation measures would not prevent all Level A 

harassment and would reduce the extent of, but not prevent, behavioral responses including Level B 

harassment.

Table C-6 lists the maximum 180-dB range calculated for electromechanical sources, based on 

acoustic modeling in Appendix D. The range of values reflects the various geographic and seasonal 

scenarios modeled. The 180 dB radius ranged from 38 to 45 m (125 to 148 ft) for the boomer from 32 to 

42 m (105 to 138 ft) for the chirp subbottom profiler. The 180-dB radius was 27 m (89 ft) for the 

multibeam depth sounder under all scenarios. The side-scan sonar had the largest 180-dB radius, ranging 

from 128 to 192 m (420 to 630 ft). 

Table C-6 

 

Estimated Ranges for Level A and B Harassment of Cetaceans

by Electromechanical Sources Based on the NMFS 180-dB and 160-dB Criteria

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

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 The nominal source level was adjusted by the amount indicated to recalculate the 180-dB radius in the last 

column. b The value is the radius (Rmax) for the maximum received sound pressure level (Appendix D). 

Source: Appendix D. 

The initial 180-dB calculations in Table C-6 are based on nominal source levels and do not take into 

account the pulse duration. As indicated in the table, 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 for 

side-scan sonar and multibeam depth sounder were recalculated to account for short pulse duration as 

shown in Table C-6. For the boomer, and multibeam depth sounder, the recalculated 180-dB radius was 

<5 m under all scenarios. The recalculated 180 dB radius ranged from 65 to 96 m (213 to 315 ft) for the 

side-scan sonar and from 26 to 35 m (85 to 115 ft) for chirp subbottom profiler. Specific considerations 

for each source are discussed below.

3.3.2.2.1.1. Boomer

The frequency range of the representative boomer (200 Hz to 16 kHz) is entirely within the hearing 

range of all cetacean groups and is also within the expected hearing range of sea turtles. Based on a 

source level of 212 dB re 1 μPa, the 180 dB radius is estimated to range from 38 to 45 m (125 to 148 ft) 

for the various geographic and seasonal scenarios modeled. However, taking into account the short pulse 

duration (180 μs), the recalculated 180 dB radius is <5 m (16 ft) in all modeled scenarios (Table C-6). 
C-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.3.2.2.1.2. Side-Scan Sonar

For the representative 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. Sea 

turtles are not expected to hear this source. Based on a source level of 226 dB re 1 μPa, the 180-dB 

radius is estimated to range from 128-192 m (420-630 ft) for the various geographic and seasonal 

scenarios modeled. Taking into account the short pulse length of 20 ms, the recalculated 180-dB radius 

ranges from 65 to 96 m (213 to 315 ft) (Table C-6). 

3.3.2.2.1.3. Chirp Subbottom Profiler

The representative chirp subbottom profiler operates at three frequencies: 3.5 kHz, 12 kHz, and 

200 kHz. The highest frequency (200 kHz) is above the hearing range for all cetaceans. Sea turtles are 

not expected to hear this source. Based on a source level of 222 dB re 1 μPa, the 180-dB radius ranges 

from 32 to 42 m (105 to 138 ft) for the various geographic and seasonal scenarios modeled. Because the 

pulse length of 64 ms is relatively close to the 10-ms integration time assumed for the cetacean ear, the 

correction for pulse length reduces the ranges only slightly to 26-35 m (85-115 ft) (Table C-6). 

3.3.2.2.1.4. Multibeam Depth Sounder

Based on a source level of 213 dB re 1 μPa, the 180-dB radius calculated for the multibeam depth 

sounder is 27 m (89 ft) for all of the geographic and seasonal scenarios modeled. Taking into account the 

short pulse duration (225 μs), the radius is further reduced to <5 m (16 ft) for all modeled scenarios. 

More importantly, because the operating frequency of the representative multibeam system (240 kHz) is 

above the hearing range of all three cetacean groups, no auditory impacts are expected. Similarly, sea 

turtles are not expected to hear this source.

The relatively low risk of auditory impacts on marine mammals from multibeam depth sounders is 

consistent with a recent analysis by Lurton and DeRuiter (2011) taking into account both the short pulse 

duration and high directivity of these sources.

3.3.2.2.2. Injury Ranges Calculated Using the Southall Criteria

Based on data for onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS), Southall et al. (2007) proposed dual 

injury criteria for cetaceans exposed to non-pulse sources. In the Southall et al. (2007) terminology, all of 

the electromechanical sources evaluated here would be considered non-pulse sources. The first injury 

criterion is a sound exposure level (SEL) of 215 dB re 1 μPa2 s and the second is a flat-weighted peak 

pressure exceeding 230 dB re 1 μPa. Injury is assumed to occur if either criterion is exceeded (or both).

For all of the representative electromechanical sources in this Programmatic EIS, the source level is 

less than 230 dB re 1 μPa and therefore the pressure criterion would not be exceeded and the injury radius 

is zero. Calculation of the injury radius using the SEL criterion is complicated because exposure depends 

on the ping rate and the number of pulses an animal receives; however, in general, predicted injury radii 

are expected to be less than 10 m (33 ft) for all of the sources.

3.3.2.2.3. Level B Harassment Ranges Calculated Using the 160-dB NMFS Criterion

Table C-6 also lists the maximum 160-dB range calculated for electromechanical sources, based on 

acoustic modeling in Appendix D. The range of values reflects the various geographic and seasonal 

scenarios modeled. The boomer had the largest 160-dB radius, ranging from 1,054 to 2,138 m (3,458 to 

7,015 ft), followed by the chirp subbottom profiler (359-971 m or 1,178-3,186 ft), the side-scan sonar 

(500-655 m or 1,640-2,149 ft) and the multibeam depth sounder (147-156 m or 482-512 ft). 

Values taking into account pulse duration are shown in the last column of Table C-6. Due to the very 

short pulse duration, the boomer, and multibeam depth sounder have radii of 16 m (52 ft) and 12 m 

(39 ft), respectively. The recalculated 160 dB radius ranged from 240 to 689 m (787 to 2,261 ft) for the 

chirp subbottom profiler and from 337 to 450 m (1,106 to 1,476 ft) for side-scan sonar.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-27

3.3.2.2.4. Discussion 

Among the representative electromechanical sources, boomers, and multibeam depth sounders pose 

the smallest risk of auditory impacts to marine mammals. Under all scenarios modeled, the 180-dB radius 

for both sources is estimated to be <50 m (160 ft) for the nominal source level and <5 m (16 ft) when 

pulse duration is taken into account. Based on the Southall criteria, the predicted injury radius would be 

zero for both sources. In addition, the operating frequency of the representative multibeam depth sounder 

is beyond the range of all three cetacean groups. (Some multibeam depth sounders use different 

frequencies that are within the cetacean hearing range, but the system modeled here is considered 

representative of the equipment likely to be used during HRG surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals sites.)

Both the representative side-scan sonar and chirp subbottom profiler could be detectable by 

cetaceans, depending on the operating frequencies selected. The side-scan sonar operating at 100 kHz 

would be detectable and the 180-dB radius is estimated to be 128-192 m (420-630 ft) based on the 

nominal source level and 65-96 m (213-315 ft) when the short pulse length is taken into account. The 

chirp subbottom profiler operating at either 3.5 kHz or 12 kHz would be detectable and the 180-dB radius 

is estimated to be 32-42 m (105-138 ft) based on the nominal source level and 26-35 m (85-115 ft) when 

the short pulse length is taken into account. Based on the Southall criteria, predicted injury ranges are 

less than 10 m (33 ft) for both sources.

Depending on the suite of equipment selected and the operating frequencies selected, there may be no 

acoustic impacts. For example, if a survey uses side-scan sonar at 400 kHz, chirp subbottom at 200 kHz, 

multibeam depth sounder at 240 kHz, and no boomer or sparker, then no acoustic impacts on marine 

mammals would be expected.

For surveys with one or more sources operating at frequencies within the cetacean hearing range, if 

source levels are low enough, it may be feasible to monitor the entire 160 dB radius. For example, a 

source level of 206 dB re 1μPa would have a 160 dB radius of 200 m (656 ft) (based on the simplistic 

assumption of spherical spreading).

3.3.2.2.5. Practical Considerations

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 non-airgun HRG surveys within the AOI. 

The operational ranges for non-airgun HRG surveys typically conducted for renewable energy and marine 

minerals projects would be approximately <25 mi from shore and in water <40 m (141 ft) deep. The 

operational ranges for non-airgun HRG surveys typically conducted for oil and gas would be located 

throughout the AOI. Unlike the large, dedicated vessels used for seismic airgun surveys, coastal survey 

vessels may not have an elevated viewing platform that may be used by visual observers, and so their 

capability for effectively monitoring a radius larger than a few hundred meters would depend on vessel 

size and configuration. An acoustic exclusion zone radius of 200 m (656 ft) would encompass the 180-dB 

Level A harassment radius calculated for all of the representative electromechanical sources included in 

this Programmatic EIS as summarized above. Depending on the source levels of the equipment used on 

particular surveys, this radius may also encompass the 160 dB Level B harassment zone. Therefore, the 

protocol would allow an operator to monitor a radius larger than 200 m (656 ft) if the visual observers are 

able to effectively monitor the designated acoustic exclusion zone.

Geophysical operators report that dolphins frequently approach and chase the side-scan sonar towfish. 

Therefore, requiring a shutdown for delphinids could significantly increase survey duration or even make 

it impossible to complete some HRG surveys. The protocol requires that the exclusion zone be initially 

clear of all marine mammals and sea turtles and specifies shutdown for any marine mammal or sea turtle 

entering the exclusion zone. Shutdown would not be required for delphinids approaching the vessel (or 

vessel’s towed equipment) that indicates a “voluntary approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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. If a delphinid voluntarily moves into the exclusion zone after the active acoustic 

sound sources are operating, it is reasoned that the sound pressure level is not negatively affecting that 

particular animal. 
C-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

3.3.2.2.6. Conclusions – Acoustic Exclusion Zone

An acoustic exclusion zone would be established for HRG surveys conducted with one or more sound 

sources operating at a frequency of at or below 200 kHz. An acoustic exclusion zone is not required for 

HRG surveys in which all active sound sources would operate at frequencies greater than 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, which is the current NMFS 

criterion for Level A harassment of cetaceans. If the calculated radius for a source is greater than 200 m 

(656 ft), the 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 

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. Depending on the source levels, operational frequency, and deployment mode of the 

geophysical equipment used, the 200 m (656 ft) exclusion zone could also encompass the 160-dB Level B 

harassment zone. 

3.3.2.3. Acoustic Exclusion Zone Monitoring by Protected Species Observers

All HRG surveys using one or more active acoustic sources operating at or below 200 kHz must use 

trained PSOs to monitor an acoustic exclusion zone. If there are no acoustic sources operating at 

frequencies at and below 200 kHz, there will be no acoustic exclusion zone and there are no requirements 

for PSOs or other trained visual observers. However, all HRG operators must comply with separate 

guidance for vessel strike avoidance (see Section 3.1.1). 

A PSO for an HRG survey is defined as someone who has successfully completed a PSO training 

course approved by NMFS. The PSOs can be trained crew members and/or third party observers. All 

PSO resumes must be submitted to NMFS for approval prior to survey operations. Basic training criteria 

have been established and must be adhered to by any entity that offers PSO training. BOEM will not 

sanction particular trainers or training programs.

Visual monitoring of the acoustic exclusion zone must be conducted 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).

The requirements for PSOs and their roles are as follows: 

a. At least one PSO will be required on duty at all times to monitor the acoustic 

exclusion zone when acoustic sources are operating. 

b. The PSO(s) will monitor an acoustic exclusion zone for protected species and 

observe and document their presence and behavior, searching the area around the 

vessel using hand-held reticle binoculars, and the unaided eye. If BOEM approves

nighttime operations or if operations continue 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. The following schedule limitations shall apply to PSOs during HRG survey activities:

1. Other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no additional 

duties shall be assigned to PSOs during their watch.

2. A watch shall be no longer than four consecutive hours.

3. A break of at least 2 hr shall occur between 4-hr watches, and no other duties 

shall be assigned during this period.

4. A PSO’s combined watch schedule shall not exceed 12 hrs during a 24-hr period. 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-29

3.3.2.4. Shutdown Requirements

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 active acoustic sound source(s) 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 exclusion zone is clear of all

marine mammals and sea turtles for 60 min.

Shutdown would not be required for delphinids approaching the acoustic exclusion zone that indicates 

a “voluntary approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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 shutdown as per his/her instruction. The PSO must record the details of any non-shutdowns 

in the presence of a delphinid, 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, HRG operations may 

recommence only when the exclusion zone has been visually inspected for at least 60 min to help ensure 

the absence of all marine mammals and sea turtles.

3.3.2.5. Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Passive acoustic monitoring is not included as recommended mitigation in the HRG Survey Protocol

for Alternative A. The use of PAM for HRG surveys would be evaluated and approved on an individual 

project basis, during the activity-specific assessment that is part of the application process. The 

circumstances specific to each HRG geophysical survey would be considered in determining the utility 

and cost-effectiveness of PAM. In Alternative B, for non-airgun HRG surveys using sources at or below 

200 kHz, if BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if operations continue during periods of reduced 

visibility, additional effective monitoring technologies, which could include PAM, would be required

(see Section 4.5). 

High-resolution geophysical surveys typically only involve the use boomer and/or chirp subbottom 

profiler, side-scan sonar, and multibeam/interferometric/single beam fathometers. The operation and 

deployment of these sources is different from seismic airguns. Comparatively small vessels are typically 

deployed for these comparatively small-footprint and short-duration surveys, where sound-producing 

equipment is vessel-mounted or towed a short distance behind the vessel. Separately towed hydrophone 

strings are not used unless boomers are deployed. Geophysical surveys associated with marine minerals

are typically accomplished within 1-3 daylight-hour days in water depths of 10-30 m (32-98 ft). Surveys 

in support of renewable energy site development will likely have a larger footprint, take more total time to 

complete the survey activity, and are conducted further offshore but generally in depths not exceeding 

40 m (131 ft). The non-airgun HRG surveys associated with oil and gas exploration and development 

could be conducted throughout the AOI at all water depths. 

Relatively fewer species, but perhaps at greater concentrations (e.g., bottlenose dolphin, NARW), 

may be present or transiting through these areas. Lower-frequency electromechanical HRG sources 

(e.g., boomer, sparker, chirp subbottom profilers) are often operated at partial power settings, operated at 

filtered frequency bandwidth, and towed closer to the bottom, reducing the intensity and zone of 

ensonification and corresponding likelihood of animal exposure. Night-time surveys are not a standard 

practice for non-airgun HRG surveys conducted nearshore, however some operators may request the 

flexibility to work at night in order to save costs associated with returning to port. In such cases an 

alternative monitoring strategy for night-time operations will be discussed. 

3.3.2.6. Other Requirements

BOEM will notify NMFS at least 30 days in advance of the start of the proposed HRG survey 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 
C-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

consistent with the activities and conditions considered in this Programmatic EIS or the associated ESA 

consultation, then a separate Section 7 consultation may be required.

3.4. SUMMARY OF VISUAL OBSERVER REQUIREMENTS

Several of the preceding sections described requirements for PSOs or other observers. Requirements 

for observers are summarized in Table C-7. All G&G operators must comply with guidance for vessel 

strike avoidance as explained in Section 3.1.1. Regardless of the type of G&G survey being conducted, 

visual observers monitoring solely for vessel strike avoidance can be crew members and/or trained third 

party observers. They do not have specific training requirements nor will they need to be approved by 

BOEM or BSEE.

All seismic airgun surveys must use PSOs to monitor the acoustic exclusion zone. A PSO for a 

seismic airgun survey must be a third-party observer who has completed a PSO training course meeting 

the recommendations of the NOAA Fisheries Service’s “National Standards for Protected Species 

Observers and Data Management: A Model for Seismic Surveys.” All PSO resumés must be submitted 

to NMFS for approval prior to survey operations.

All HRG surveys having an acoustic exclusion zone (i.e., those conducted using one or more sound 

sources operating at and below 200 kHz) must use PSOs to monitor the acoustic exclusion zone. A PSO 

must be approved by NMFS. The PSOs for HRG surveys can be crew members and/or third party 

observers. All PSO resumes must be submitted to NMFS for approval prior to survey operations.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation

C-31

Table C-7 

 

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 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 2 hr shall occur 

between 4-hr watches, with no other duties 

during this period.

4. A PSO’s combined watch schedule shall 

not exceed 12 hrs 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 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/or 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. 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 résumés must be submitted to NMFS for approval prior to 

survey operations.

2 A PSO for an HRG survey is someone who has been approved by NMFS. All PSO resumés must be submitted to NMFS for approval prior to survey operations.
C-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES INCLUDED IN 

ALTERNATIVE B 

The mitigation measures included in Alternative B and their applicability to G&G survey types is 

summarized in Table C-8. The following protective measures in Alternative B would be identical to 

those previously described for the Proposed Action (Alternative A): 

• guidance for vessel strike avoidance guidance;

• guidance for marine debris awareness;

• avoidance and reporting of historic and prehistoric sites;

• avoidance of sensitive benthic communities; 

• guidance for activities in or near NMSs; and

• guidance for military and NASA coordination. 

Alternative B would include the additional or revised measures listed below and described in the 

following subsections:

• an expanded airgun time-area closure for NARWs; 

• a time-area closure for nesting sea turtles offshore Brevard County, Florida;

• geographic separation of concurrent seismic surveys; 

• a Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol with required use of PAM; and

• HRG Survey Protocol (for non-airgun HRG surveys) with additional monitoring 

requirements for nighttime or reduced visibility.

4.1. EXPANDED TIME-AREA CLOSURE FOR NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALES 

Under Alternative B, the NARW time-area closure for airgun surveys would be expanded to a 

continuous 37 km (20 nmi) wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI 

(Figure C-4). 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 North Atlantic right whale critical habitat between the Southeast 

U.S. SMA and the southern boundary of the AOI. The expanded closure area would add 6,823,753 ac 

(27,615 km2

) to the SMA closure areas described under Alternative A, totaling 14,413,356 ac 

(58,329 km2

) and representing 7 percent of the total AOI (vs. approximately 4% under Alternative A).

The purpose of the expanded time-area closure is to prevent impacts to NARWs along their entire 

migration route and calving and nursery grounds. 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 C-4). 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation

C-33

Table C-8 

 

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) 

Southeast &

Mid-Atlantic U.S. 

SMAs 

(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 

Protocol HRG 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.
C-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table C-8. 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 Protocol

Required use of 

Additional 

Monitoring 

Technologies at 

Night in HRG 

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; 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 for HRG surveys applies only to surveys at night or during conditions of reduced visibility.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-35

Figure C-4. Time-Area Closures under Alternative B.
C-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Under the expanded time-area closure, no airgun surveys would be authorized within the NARW 

critical habitat area and additional closure zone south from November 15 through April 15 nor within the 

Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs and additional closure zone north from November 1 to April 30, 

Additionally, airgun surveys would not be allowed in active DMAs. Airgun surveys conducted outside of 

the continuous expanded 37 km (20 nmi) zone (which incorporates critical habitat and SMAs) or DMAs 

would be required to remain at a distance such that received levels at those boundaries do not exceed the 

threshold for Level B harassment, as determined by field verification or modeling. 

Under Alternative B, the time-area closure for non-airgun HRG surveys would be the same as under 

Alternative A. Surveys using acoustic sources operating greater than between 30 and 200 kHz would be 

authorized year-round throughout the AOI, subject to the HRG protocol, acoustic exclusion zone 

monitoring, PSO requirements, and guidance for vessel strike avoidance. Surveys using acoustic sources 

operating greater than 200 kHz would be authorized year-round throughout the AOI, subject to the

guidance for vessel strike avoidance. G&G surveys that do not use active acoustic sources would be 

authorized year-round throughout the AOI, subject to guidance for vessel strike avoidance. Any proposed 

HRG surveys within the NARW critical habitat and operating at 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. Surveys using acoustic sources operating at and below 30 kHz in areas outside the NARW

critical habitat would be authorized year-round, subject to the HRG protocol and guidance for vessel 

strike avoidance.

4.2. TIME-AREA CLOSURE FOR 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) (Figure C-4). No airgun surveys 

would be authorized within the closure area during this time. Non-airgun HRG surveys using active 

acoustic 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 expected hearing range of sea turtles. Operational or monitoring surveys typically 

involve a single beam, swath or multibeam and occasional side-scan sonar.

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 C-5). 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 sound pressure levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa from a large airgun array in this area.

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. 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 National Wildlife Refuge (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 mile) within the Archie Carr NWR. 

The sea turtle time-area closure would overlap with the NARW time-area closure (Figure C-5). The 

overlapping area would be under closure to seismic airgun surveys (and HRG surveys that use equipment 

with frequencies less than 1.6 kHz) during most of the year (November 15 – April 15 for NARW and 

May 1 – October 31 for sea turtles).
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-37

Figure C-5. Time-Area Closures Offshore Brevard County under Alternative B.
C-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3. GEOGRAPHIC SEPARATION BETWEEN SIMULTANEOUS SEISMIC AIRGUN 

SURVEYS

Alternative B would 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% 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 

(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).

4.4. SEISMIC AIRGUN SURVEY PROTOCOL WITH REQUIRED USE OF PASSIVE 

ACOUSTIC MONITORING

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). 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 exclusion zone.

Use of PAM would be incorporated into the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. The proposed 

methodology for implementing a PAM survey will require BOEM approval. Survey and sighting reports 

must include, at a minimum, information specified in the protocol. A description of the PAM system, the 

software used, and the monitoring plan must be provided to BOEM prior to the survey. The following 

information must be provided after the survey: an assessment of the usefulness, effectiveness, and 

problems encountered with the use of PAM as a method of marine mammal detection.

4.5. HRG SURVEY PROTOCOL WITH REQUIRED USE OF ADDITIONAL

MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES DURING NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS

Under Alternative B, if BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if operations continue during 

periods of reduced visibility operators must use effective monitoring technologies to monitor the 

exclusion zone. Possible tools include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision 

equipment and/or PAM. This would apply to surveys with sound sources operating at frequencies at and 

below 200 kHz during periods of reduced visibility or at night. This provision would apply year-round. 

Section 3.2.2.6 discusses PAM monitoring methods and equipment. Approval requirements would be the 

same as stated in Section 4.4. The purpose 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 startup until the 

animals are outside the exclusion zone.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-39

5. OTHER MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES 

CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED

5.1. EXPANDED EXCLUSION ZONE (160 dB) FOR SEISMIC AIRGUN SURVEYS

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol (Attachment 1) includes an exclusion zone based on the range 

at which marine mammals could be exposed to a received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa, which 

is the current NMFS criterion for Level A harassment of cetaceans. BOEM also considered establishing 

an exclusion zone based on a received sound pressure level of 160 dB re 1 μPa, which is the current 

NMFS criterion for Level B harassment of cetaceans. The purpose of this larger zone would be to avoid 

most Level B harassment of marine mammals. Based on calculations in Appendix D as summarized in 

Table C-9, this zone 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. The mean distances were 8.5 km (5.3 mi) for a large airgun array and 1.9 km (1.2 mi) for a 

small airgun array.

Table C-9 

 

Estimated Ranges (m) for Level B Harassment of Cetaceans by Airgun Arrays

based on the NMFS 160-dB Criterion

Equipment Number of Scenarios 

Modeled Statistics

Current NMFS 

Level B Criterion

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms)

Rmax R95%

5,400 in3 Airgun Array 21

Min (m) 5,184 4,959

Max (m) 15,305 9,122

Mean (m) 8,679 6,856

90 in3 Airgun Array 35

Min (m) 1,294 1,100

Max (m) 3,056 2,519

Mean (m) 1,919 1,684

Rmax is the maximum received sound pressure level. 

R95% is the received level over 95 percent of the energy of the pulse. 

Source: Appendix D. 

BOEM has determined that it is not feasible to routinely require monitoring of a 160 dB exclusion 

zone for seismic surveys using shipboard PSOs. Effective monitoring of a larger, 160 dB exclusion zone 

may be feasible for some surveys if the 160 dB radius is small enough, but in many cases it would require 

a combination of techniques in addition to shipboard PSOs. These could include aerial monitoring using 

manned or unmanned aircraft. As explained in Section 5.3, in current practice those techniques have 

significant limitations and disadvantages, given the geographic scope of the proposed action. BOEM has 

determined that it is not currently feasible to require a combination of shipboard and aerial surveys on a 

routine basis to effectively monitor a 160 dB exclusion zone.

Although 160 dB is the current criterion for Level B harassment of cetaceans by impulsive sources, 

there is much variability and ongoing research about the levels of received sound that can cause 

behavioral responses in marine mammals, as well as the biological significance of those responses 

(National Research Council, 2005; Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2011). Also, although the 

exclusion zone included in the proposed action would not prevent Level B harassment of marine 

mammals, other measures such as the time-area closure for NARWs (Section 3.2.1) would help to reduce 

the risk of those impacts.

5.2. ACTIVE ACOUSTIC MONITORING

Active acoustic monitoring (AAM) is a method of determining the presence of marine mammals that 

use sonar. The AAM can potentially detect non-vocalizing marine mammals, whereas PAM can detect 
C-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

only vocalizing animals. However, there a number of significant issues with AAM, including that AAM 

systems transmit acoustic energy that may disturb marine mammals by influencing their behavior, and a 

separate permit may be necessary for its use (Bingham, 2011).

Active sonar produces a short sound pulse (energy) from a high power source (transducer) that travels 

through the water, reflects off objects, and travels back to a hydrophone receiver. The time it takes for the 

sound to travel to and from the target is easily computed from the difference in time that the source 

“ping” was sent and the time the reflected returning sound is measured. This travel time multiplied by the 

speed of sound in water divided by two is the approximate distance to the target. Bearing and range from 

the ship (or some other platform) can be converted to an absolute position on a map, given the ship 

position and some simple geometry. This is used, for example, to map seabed features, or to discriminate 

among different objects on the seafloor and in the water.

Potential problems with the use of AAM include standard sonar problems of reverberations and 

propagation in high-clutter shallow water environments, false alarms, species classification, methods of 

deployment, and cost (Stein, 2011). In addition, while AAM can identify animals swimming at right 

angle to the sound source, it is difficult to detect animals that are directly facing toward or away from the 

AAM sound source. It is also difficult to detect animals swimming at depth or animals swimming close 

to the surface with AAM. Another operational challenge with AAM is that it does not penetrate beneath 

thermoclines or haloclines, so animals swimming below them would also not be detected by AAM 

systems that are hull-mounted. In these situations, towed AAM systems would be required. In addition, 

AAM is not very useful in very shallow water, especially in rough seas. Currently the use of AAM 

technology for mitigation and monitoring of marine mammals during offshore industry activities is less 

advanced than either fixed or towed PAM systems. However, recent testing of the technology indicates 

that it can be useful in certain circumstances (Bingham, 2011).

There have also been some studies performed using high frequency fisheries sonar for locating 

marine mammals, killer whales in Norway in particular (Knudsen et al., 2007). These fisheries sonars 

operate at 20-30 kHz, with some operating at frequencies above 100 kHz. Most whales can detect 

frequencies in the 20-30 kHz range, but only smaller whales and dolphins can detect frequencies above 

100 kHz (Knudsen et al., 2007). One study compared results using two sonars with different operating 

ranges, one operated at 20-30 kHz and the other operated at 110-122 kHz, and determined that the lower 

frequency sonar detected killer whales up to at least a 1,500-m (4,921-ft) range, whereas the higher 

frequency sonar did not give reliable detection at ranges greater than 400 m (1,312 ft) (Knudsen et al., 

2007). However, most fish-finding sonars operate at around 30 kHz and would be good for detecting 

whales out to about 2 km (1.2 mi) and dolphins out to about 1 km (0.6 mi), but due to the frequency they 

also would be audible to all the small marine mammals and some of the larger whales. If the whale 

detection sonar is operated at frequencies that the animals might hear, the detection sonar also would need 

to be assessed as a source of disturbance, and the signal processing for species discrimination and 

potential cumulative effects would need to be addressed.

BOEM has determined that it is not currently feasible to require AAM on a routine basis because the 

development of an effective active sonar system will require consideration of the behavioral differences 

among various types of marine mammals. It may be difficult to develop a single approach that will work 

well with all species.

5.3. AERIAL SURVEYS

As a mitigation measure, aerial surveys with PSOs provide the ability to observe and monitor large 

exclusion zones that cannot be adequately monitored from a vessel. As a mitigation measure, aerial 

surveys can monitor seismic exclusion zones, and if marine mammals are seen from the aircraft within the 

appropriate exclusion zone around the seismic source vessel or heading toward that zone, the aerial PSO

could notify the seismic vessel on-board personnel in order for the sighting to be monitored, tracked, and 

appropriate mitigation measures initiated as necessary. 

Aerial surveys are performed by two primary observers sitting at bubble windows on opposite sides 

of a small aircraft flying typically at 305-457 m (1,000-1,500 ft) above the surface. The observers search 

the sea surface visible through the bubble windows with the unaided eye. When a marine mammal is 

sighted, the observers record the species, number of individuals, size/sex/and age class when possible, 

activity, heading, and swimming speed category (if traveling). In addition, the observer will recorded the 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-41

time, sightability (subjectively classified as excellent, good, moderately impaired, seriously impaired, or 

impossible), sea conditions, and sun glare (none, little, moderate, or severe) at intervals along the transect 

and at the end of each transect.

Aerial monitoring programs have significant limitations. Practically, they are limited to nearshore 

waters where there is an airport nearby to allow for adequate survey duration to allow for less transit time 

to and from the survey vessel location. They also require additional logistical coordination, are sensitive 

to weather-related interruptions, and carry safety risks to survey personnel. For example, in May 2008 a 

small aircraft conducting marine mammal surveys for a renewable energy site offshore the Mid-Atlantic 

coast crashed in New Jersey, killing two people and injuring two others (Spoto, 2008). 

Because of the significant limitations for manned aerial surveys in offshore waters due to the long 

transit times, unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) are a possibility for future use. The UASs have been 

emerging as a potential monitoring resource for detecting the presence of marine mammals during 

research as well as to meet mitigation and monitoring requirements during human activities, such as 

military preparedness exercises (e.g., sonar signals), seismic airgun surveys, and geophysical research. A 

number of organizations, such as members of the offshore oil and gas industry, NMFS, BOEM, and the 

U.S. Navy, have been investigating the use of these surveys for a number of reasons, including but not 

limited to (1) unmanned surveys address safety concerns of putting human pilots and observers in 

potentially dangerous offshore areas; (2) unmanned aircraft can generally fly up to 20 hr, which is longer 

than manned surveys; (3) unmanned surveys can provide video data, even with high definition video 

cameras, which can be carefully reviewed post-flight rather than relying simply on visual observations 

during the flight; (4) unmanned surveys may provide for more frequent survey effort since securing 

personnel for flights is not necessary; and (5) aircraft can be launched from seismic ships. Models 

currently under production, such as the ScanEagle which is used for military and other applications, show 

potential for use in conducting marine mammal surveys. Preliminary scientific testing has been 

conducted by NMFS scientists at the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML). However, NMFS 

has indicated that more testing is necessary before NMFS will give approval to the use of UASs as a 

mitigation or monitoring tool.

The current process to gain approval to operate an UAS requires the military and non-military 

(Federal, State, and local government entities, academic institutions, and private entities) to request the 

FAA to issue a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) or a special airworthiness certificate. The 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) evaluates these applications on a case-by-case basis. Advances in 

technology have led to increased demand for UASs resulting in a rise in number of applications which has 

slowed the review process. In February 2012, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

(P.L. 112-95), which calls for the FAA to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national 

airspace system by 2015. FAA authority extends to airspace over territorial waters from the U.S. coast to 

12 miles offshore of the U.S. coast. NMFS and BOEM are following the ongoing efforts to streamline 

the FAA approval process. Should the FAA grant UAS approval for use in offshore waters of the 

Atlantic Ocean, NMFS (and BOEM) would then make a determination (informed by the results of 

additional UAS testing) on whether UASs are a practical tool to detect marine mammals in offshore 

waters in support of seismic survey monitoring programs. 

5.4. AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLES

Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) can be used to aid in PAM. The AUVs are capable of 

monitoring at vertical and horizontal scales similar to the diving and foraging movements of the whales 

themselves (Moore et al., 2007). Another advantage of deploying PAM from AUVs or towed platforms 

is that it provides a good means of detecting vocalizing marine mammals that is less affected by sea state, 

visibility, or presence of a survey vessel (USDOC, NOAA, 2007).

The Office of Naval Research is sponsoring studies involving five different AUVs using PAM on 

gliders. However, the results of these studies are not available at this time. One issue with using PAM on 

AUVs is that they are already slow vessels, and attaching a towed array system creates additional drag 

that slows them down further. BOEM has determined that it is not currently feasible to use AUVs for 

monitoring seismic airgun surveys on a routine basis.
C-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

5.5. EQUIPMENT POWER DOWN

An equipment power down involves decreasing the number of acoustic sources in use such that the 

radii of the 190 and 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) zones are decreased to the extent that observed marine 

mammals or sea turtles are not in the applicable exclusion zone. A power down may also occur when the 

vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. During a power down, only one acoustic source is 

operated. The continued operation of one acoustic source is intended to: 

a. alert marine mammals or sea turtles to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area, 

and

b. retain the option of initiating a ramp up to full array under poor visibility conditions. 

In contrast, a shutdown is when all acoustic source activity is suspended. In a power down, if a 

marine mammal or sea turtle is detected outside the exclusion zone but is likely to enter the exclusion 

zone, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid having the mammal or sea turtle 

enter the exclusion zone, the acoustic sources may (as an alternative to a complete shutdown) be powered 

down before the mammal or sea turtle is within the exclusion zone. Likewise, if a mammal is already 

within the exclusion zone when first detected, the acoustic sources are powered down immediately if this 

is a reasonable alternative to a complete shutdown. During a power down of the array, the number of 

acoustic sources operating will be reduced to a single acoustic source. The small acoustic power down 

sources are measured during acoustic sound source measurements conducted at the start of seismic 

operations. If a marine mammal or sea turtle is detected within or near the applicable exclusion zone 

around the power down source, it is deactivated resulting in a complete shutdown. 

Following a power down, operation of the full acoustic source array does not resume until all marine

mammals and/or sea turtles have cleared the exclusion zone. The animal is considered to have cleared the

exclusion zone if it:

• is visually observed to have left the exclusion zone, or

• has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case of pinnipeds 

(excluding walruses) or small odontocetes, or

• has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case of mysticetes or large

odontocetes.

The operating acoustic source(s) is shut down completely if a marine mammal or sea turtle 

approaches or enters the then-applicable exclusion zone and a power down is not practical or adequate 

to reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The operating acoustic sources(s) are also 

shut down completely if a marine mammal or sea turtle approaches or enters the estimated exclusion zone 

around the reduced source that is used during a power down. Acoustic source activity does not resume 

until the marine mammal or sea turtle has cleared the exclusion zone. The animal is considered to have 

cleared the exclusion zone if it is visually observed to have left the exclusion zone, or if it has not been 

seen within the zone for 15 min (pinnipeds and small odontocetes) or 30 min (mysticetes and large 

odontocetes). Ramp up procedures will be followed during resumption of full seismic operations after a 

shutdown of the acoustic source array.

During the November 2012 BOEM and NMFS Monitoring and Mitigation Workshop, members of 

industry indicated that a power down may not actually be useful and the end result may be higher and 

extended levels of sound due to industry's need to circle back and re-shoot that line to prevent gaps in 

their data. Instead, BOEM and NMFS are requiring a standard shutdown procedure. This mitigation 

measure, though, may be managed adaptively.

6. NON-AIRGUN ALTERNATIVES AND RELATED MEASURES

CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED

The impulsive airgun has been under scrutiny as a sound source for seismic exploration due to the 

potential impacts of underwater noise on marine life (Weilgart, 2010). Alternative acoustic source 

technologies generally put the same level of useable energy into the water as airguns, but over a longer 

period of time with a resulting lower peak sound level, i.e., they are quieter. One alternative, the low 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-43

frequency passive seismic method, relies on naturally produced sounds and does not introduce any sound 

into the environment. These 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. However, they are discussed in detail in the technical write-up below along with 

technology-based mitigation measures that attempt to decrease the noise level of airguns.

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.

6.1. MARINE VIBROSEIS (VIBRATORS) 

A seismic vibrator, commonly known as vibroseis, propagates energy into the Earth over an extended 

period of time as opposed to the near-instantaneous energy provided by airguns (LGL Limited 

environmental research associates and Marine Acoustics Inc., 2011; OGP, 2011). Vibroseis was 

developed by scientists at the Continental Oil Company (Conoco) during the 1950s and was a trademark 

name until the company’s patent lapsed.

Vibroseis is used widely for seismic surveys on land, but so far has seen relatively limited use in the 

marine environment (OGP, 2011). According to OGP (2011), “the geophysical concept of marine 

vibrators is understood and offers great promise, but further investment and development will be required 

in order to improve operational efficiency and data imaging capability that is comparable with airgun 

source arrays.” However, marine vibroseis has been cited as “arguably the most likely technology to 

eventually replace airguns” (Weilgart, 2012a). Two types of marine vibrators have been developed: 

hydraulic and electromechanical. Hydraulic and electromechanical marine vibrators can be towed in the 

same configuration as airgun arrays or operated in a stationary mode much like land vibrators; marine 

vibrator’s may have fewer elements and better source characteristics, and will have lower source signal 

rise times, lower peak pressures, and less energy above 100 Hz (Thorson et al., 2005).

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 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 

3 proposals to fund and move forward. Phase III, which is underway, is pursuing 3 different technologies 

and expects that the first prototype will be tested and evaluated in 18 months. Phase IV will be to build 

and field test commercial systems from the technologies tested and evaluated in Phase III. Phase IV is 

anticipated to be complete in 2016 (Rosenbladt et al., 2013).

Marine Vibroseis is considered currently as the most promising alternative for airguns in select 

settings and applications (i.e., shallow water, sensitive habitat, near biological resources). Nonetheless, 

vibroseis will not be a wholesale replacement for airguns.

6.1.1. Hydraulic

In 1981, Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. (IVI) signed an agreement with Britoil to develop a 

marine vibrator seismic source. In 1983, after scrapping the first design, IVI began developing a new 

system with the goal of producing a marine source able to emit a broad band, high amplitude, modulating 

frequency output. In 1985, the first commercial system was offered (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 
C-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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). Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. 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. Industrial Vehicles International, 

Inc. 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). 

Stephen Chelminski, the inventor of the airgun and primary founder of Bolt Technology Corporation, 

has also developed a design for a marine vibrator prototype that he calls a “seavibe” (Weilgart, 2012a). It 

is 53 cm in diameter, 3.5 to 6 m in length, streamlined, and towable at any speed or depth. The signal can 

be pulse-coded or a swept signal or even a mix, without any high frequencies (5-100 Hz, although 

frequencies can range from 2 to 200 Hz). The signal duration can be changed in real-time. According to 

Weilgart (2012a), the prototype system is reliable, more efficient than airguns, and requires less 

horsepower to tow than airgun arrays. A significant amount of the engineering and design for the

Chelminski Research Marine Vibratory Sound Source (the Source) has been completed on the marine 

vibrator prototype, patents have been applied for, but assembly and testing have not begun (Chelminski, 

2013).

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. 

An electrical marine vibrator offers several advantages over hydraulic vibrators (Tenghamn, 2006, 

2010). The reduction of the overall sound level and, specifically, the frequencies above 100 Hz that 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). Because highly controllable and repeatable 

signals can be produced, pseudo random noise (PRN) sequences can be generated, which make it possible 

to reduce the peak power even more (the PRN sequences not only spread the source energy over time, but 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-45

also spread the frequencies over time). Finally, there is no need for heavy equipment and hydraulic 

systems that can cause hydraulic oil spills. As the electrical vibrator requires only an electrical power 

supply, it can be easily transported to different vessels. 

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 due to 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. Petroleum GeoServices spent 2006 and 2007 conducting a feasibility study to improve reliability and testing a newly 

developed prototype. New sources have since then been tested for reliability and acoustic performance 

during 2008 and 2009 (Rune Tenghamn, VP Innovation and Business Development, PGS, pers. comm. to 

K. Olsen 6/4/13). 

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 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 in use in deep water (>200 m). This 

design has replaced the electromagnetic voice coil drivers with more reliable drivers and has made 

refinements of the springs and pressure equalization systems, as well as implementing 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. Once completed, commercial deployment could potentially begin by 

the end of the 2013. 

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 to 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, capability of specialized 

sweeps using pseudo-noise technology, and no in-water hydraulics with a completely electric-mechanical 

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 

indicate 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 consequence 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 PRN 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., 2013). 
C-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

6.2. LOW-FREQUENCY ACOUSTIC SOURCE (PATENTED) 

Originally designed as a ship sound simulator for the Norwegian navy, the low level acoustic 

combustion source (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 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 kg (220 lb) in air. Pulse 

peak-peak pressure is 218 dB re 1μPa @ 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 vertical seismic profiling (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 1μPa @ 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 prove to be a suitable substitute. but it currently exists only as a design and 

there is no known interest in further development of this system. 

6.3. DEEP-TOWED ACOUSTICS/GEOPHYSICS SYSTEM

The Navy developed a deep-towed acoustics/geophysics system (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. Seismic 

signals are digitized at each hydrophone and recorded in SEG Y format in a top-side unit (Wood et al., 

2003; Wood, 2010). 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 very 

successfully to map out 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 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-47

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 (2012b), DTAGS was tested in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 2011 and 

will undergo another trial off the coast of Oregon in September 2012. Though the frequency range of 

DTAGS is currently 200 to 4,000 Hz, it may be extended down to about 100 Hz (Warren Wood, pers. 

comm. cited in Weilgart, 2012b). 

6.4. LOW-FREQUENCY PASSIVE SEISMIC METHODS FOR EXPLORATION

Low-frequency passive seismic methods utilize microseisms, which are faint earth 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 area of interest 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 utilize 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. The DLI can augment active seismic data, where it is 

difficult to collect data. 

Local earthquake tomography (LET) 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 sea floor compliance technique. The method requires 

that ocean bottom seismometer (OBS) 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. The 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 (SWAs) is a 1D 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 (LFS), also known as low frequency passive seismic (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, 

is presently unknown, but the following reasons have been proposed: standing wave resonance, selective 
C-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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 

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. 

6.5. LOW-IMPACT SEISMIC ARRAY

Nedwell (2010) describes the concept of a low impact seismic array (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.

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 four-dimensional 

(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 they 

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 of the Programmatic EIS). 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-49 

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.

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. 

(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.

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., 2000; 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 BOEM’s 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).

6.7.3. E-source Airguns 

Weilgart (2012b) 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 
C-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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 in the public domain at this time (Robert Laws, Schlumberger 

Cambridge Research Ltd., pers. comm. to Bill Streever BP 1/17/13). 

7. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

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 our potentially permitted actions affect them. Chapter 1.7.7 identifies a 

number of potential sources for future information.

The National Research Council 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 Technical Guide – Adaptive Management Working Group, 2009 updated 

edition) (USDOI Adaptive Management Technical Guide; Williams et al., 2009). 

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; 

4. management options and strategies; and 

5. 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 for subsequent shifts in how protective measures are fielded can “tier” off of 

the initial programmatic EIS. The programmatic evaluation, therefore, needs to ensure that a robust 

collection of the potential protective measures have been treated in the alternatives that are defined. This 

approach is endorsed by the technical manual (Williams et al., 2009). 

The outline for how BOEM and BSEE intend to realize adaptive management in the 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.

The Programmatic EIS has identified three Alternatives: Alternative A – The Proposed Action; 

Alternative B – The Preferred Alternative; and Alternative C – the No Action Alternative, and has 

analyzed the possible impacts associated with those Alternatives (see Chapters 2 and 4 of the 

Programmatic EIS). Mitigation measures have also been identified as part of Alternatives A and B. 

These mitigation measures have been created and designed with a goal to both minimize impacts and 

avoid impacts on the marine environment. Additional or different mitigation measures may be required in 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-51

the future as part of the MMPA authorization process to avoid/minimize impacts to marine mammals. 

Once activities and management actions are underway, BOEM and BSEE will be actively monitoring 

whether the mitigations measures identified and implemented are sufficient to protect the environment 

while still allowing for the activities authorized to take place. 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 BSEE and BOEM 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 adaptation will take place by using this Programmatic EIS as a 

baseline; an ongoing process of BSEE examining monitoring data and periodic assessments performed on 

it in BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program; 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 pre-decisional input from interested parties 

such as other Federal, State, and local agencies, non-governmental 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 the 

resource(s) at issue 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 (several of these areas are discussed in Chapter 1.7.7). The ability to analyze the 

new information and adjust measures based on this analysis is then 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 not 

only effectiveness in mitigating the intended effect but also 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 management plan, the list below provides some 

examples. BOEM does not consider this list exhaustive (new ideas or measures may also emerge) and is

not implying that any or all of them would be implemented. 

• Additional time-area closures (potentially related to biologically important areas or multiuse conflicts); 

• Limits to seismic surveys and/or additional separation requirements – spatially or 

temporally (e.g., larger 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 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 exclusion zones and enhanced monitoring to cover those zones. 

Examples for illustrative purposes only include:

1. An applicant submits an application to conduct a seismic survey using a large airgun 

array in an area that the latest NOAA CetMap information indicates is biologically 

important to cetaceans. BOEM would analyze the potential for effects and consider 
C-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

alternatives that would limit this potential (e.g., time closures during periods of 

highest density, required use of quieter technologies).

2. New information is obtained that indicates there is a multiple use conflict between 

the operation times of a type of survey BOEM authorizes 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. 

3. New information is gained through government-to-government consultations with 

federally-recognized tribes on site-specific requests that lead to additional mitigation 

to avoid impacts to important cultural resources. 

The above are some examples of the application of adaptive management where additional mitigation

measures may be implemented based on the analysis using the best available information at the time of 

the site-specific NEPA analysis. BOEM will also continue to review monitoring data to determine 

effectiveness of required mitigation measures.

8. REFERENCES CITED

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

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/bitstreambitstream/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. Geophysics 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.

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.

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.

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 NMFS-OPR-49. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/publications/techmemo/observers_nmfsopr49.pdf. 

Accessed December 23, 2013.

Barkaszi, M.J., M. Butler, R. Compton, A. Unietis, and B. Bennet. 2012. Seismic survey mitigation 

measures and marine mammal observer reports. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-015. 

28 pp. + apps.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-53

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. 

Bingham, G. 2011. Status and Applications of Acoustic Mitigation and Monitoring Systems for Marine 

Mammals: Workshop Proceedings; November 17-19, 2009, Boston, Massachusetts. 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 2011-002. 384 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/5113.pdf. Accessed September 28, 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. 

Blue Planet Marine. 2010. Review of Seismic Guidelines and Reference Document. Discussion Paper 

prepared for Department of Conservation. Document Reference No. BPM-10-DOC-DP-v1.0. 

May 2010.

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/nrlssc-scientistsinvestigate-acoustics-in-gulf-of-mexico. Accessed September 28, 2011.

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.

Chelminski, S. 2013. A practical marine vibratory sound source. BOEM Quieting Technologies for 

Reducing Noise during Seismic Surveying and Pile Driving Workshop, 25-27 February 2013. Silver 

Spring, MD.

Christensen, E. 1989. Shallow water use of marine vibrators. SEG Abstracts 59(1):657-659.

Claerbout J.F. 1968. Synthesis of a layered medium from its acoustic transmission response. 

Geophysics 33:264-269.

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. 

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 2013. 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 No. M12PC00008. 61 pp. + apps. 

Draganov D., X. Campman, J. Thorbecke, A. Verdel, and K. Wapenaar. 2009. Reflection images from 

ambient seismic noise. Geophysics 74(5):A63-A67. 

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.

Federal Register. 2002. Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations; 

Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. January 9, 2002. 67 FR 6, pp. 1133-1142. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-01-09/pdf/02-272.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2013.

Federal Register. 2009. Renewable energy and alternate uses of existing facilities on the outer 

continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. April 29, 2009. 

74 FR 81, pp. 19638-19871. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-04-

29/pdf/E9-9462.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2012.
C-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Federal Register. 2011. Research area within Grays’ Reef National Marine Sanctuary. 76 FR 199, 

pp. 63824-63833. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Internet website: http://graysreef.noaa.gov/managementmanagement/research/pdfs/fr_2011_

26633_res_area.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

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.

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.

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). 

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.

Haldorsen, J., J.F. Desler, D. and Chu. 1985. Use of vibrators in a marine seismic source. SEG 

Abstracts 1:509-511.

Hanssen, P. and S. Bussat. 2008. Pitfalls in the analysis of low frequency passive seismic data. First 

Break 26:111-119. 

Hedgeland, D., R. Wyatt, and C. Rypdal. 2012. Operational improvements in the use of passive acoustic 

monitoring of marine mammals at sea during seismic surveys. 2012 SPE/APPEA International 

Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production (Perth, 

Australia). SPE 157549. 6 pp.

Hohl, D. and A. Mateeva. 2006. Passive seismic reflectivity imaging with ocean-bottom cable data. 

76th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. SEG Expanded Abstracts

25:1560-1564. 

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.

International Association of Geophysical Contractors. 2011. Recommended mitigation measures for 

cetaceans during geophysical operations. Revision 02, June 2011. Internet website: 

http://www.iagc.org/files/2682/. Accessed September 28, 2011.

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. 2011. An overview of marine seismic operations. 

OGP Report No. 448. April 2011. Internet website: http://entry.ogp.org.uk/pubs/448.pdf. Accessed 

September 11, 2013.

Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. 2003. The IVI marine vibrator project. 8 pp.

Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. 2010. Marine vibrator technical specifications. 

Johnson, C.S. 1968. Relation between absolute threshold and duration-of-tone pulses in the bottlenosed 

porpoise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 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.

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. 

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.

Knudsen, F.R., O.B. Gammelasaeter, P.H. Kvadheim, and L. Nøttestad. 2007. Evaluation of fisheries 

sonars for whale detection in relation to seismic survey operations. Simrad AS, Norwegian Defense 

Research Establishment, Institute of Marine Research.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-55

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. 

April 8, 2011. P. 191. 

Lurton, X. and S. DeRuiter. 2011. Sound radiation of seafloor-mapping echosounders in the water 

column, in relation to the risks posed to marine mammals. Intl. Hydrographic Review, No. 6, 

November 2011. Internet website: http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/IHReviewIHReview/2011/

IHR_Nov032011.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2012.

Moore, S.E, B.M. Howe, K.M. Stafford, and M.L. Boyd. 2007. Including whale call detection in 

standard ocean measurements: Application of acoustic seagliders. Marine Technology Society 

Journal 41:53-57. 

Nash, P. and A.V. Strudley. 2010. Fibre optic receivers and their effects on source requirements. 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, 31 August – 1 September, 2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, Auf 

der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. Pp. 27-28 Internet website: http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/

lw/publications/OKEANOS.%20Weilgart%202010.%20Alternative%20technologies.pdf. Accessed 

September 28, 2011.

National Research Council. 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise: Determining when 

noise causes biologically significant effects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 99 pp. 

+ apps. Internet website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11147&page=1. Accessed 

September 6, 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, 31 August - 1 September, 2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, Auf 

der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. Pp. 26-27. Internet website: http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/

lw/publications/OKEANOS.%20Weilgart%202010.%20Alternative%20technologies.pdf. Accessed 

September 28, 2011.

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.

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/managementmanagement/research/pdfs/

grnmsresearchareafeis.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2012. 110 pp.

Parsons, E.C.M., S.J. Dolman, M. Jasny, N.A. Rose, M.P. Simmonds, and A.J. Wright. 2009. A critique 

of the UK’s JNCC seismic survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine 

mammals: Best practise? Mar. Poll. Bull. 58:643–651.

Pegg, M. 2005. Sound and bubble barrier deters Asian carp. ACES News. July 21, 2005.

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. 

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/

onlinepubsonlinepubs/trnews/trnews262rpo.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Rosenbladt, B., M. Jenkerson, and H. Houllevigue. 2013. Marine Vibrator JIP, sponsored by Shell 

Exploration and Production Company, ExxonMobil Exploration Company, and Total E&P Research 

& Technology. BOEM Quieting Technologies for Reducing Noise during Seismic Surveying and 

Pile Driving Workshop, 25-27 February 2013, Silver Spring, MD.
C-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Ross, W.S., S.E. Heiney, E.N. Drake, R. Tenghamn, A. Stenzel. 2004. Mitigating noise in seismic 

surveys with an acoustic blanket. Internet website: http://www.pgs.com/upload/22669/data.pdf. 

4 pp.

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. 

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.

Sexton, T. 2007. Underwater sound levels associated with pile driving during the Anacortes Ferry 

Terminal Dolphin Replacement Project, April 2007. 41 pp. + app.

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.

Smith, J.G. and M.R. Jenkerson. 1998. Acquiring and processing marine vibrator data in the transition 

zone. Mobil Exploration and Producing Technical Centre.

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. 

Spence, J. 2009. Seismic survey noise under examination. Offshore Magazine 69:5. Internet website: 

http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-69/issue-5/geology-geophysics/seismic-surveynoise-under-examination.html. Accessed September 11, 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.

Spoto, M. 2008. Plane crash victims were conducting scientific survey. Internet website: http://

www.nj.com/newsnews/index.ssf/20082008/05/officials_plane_crash_victims.html. Accessed 

September 28, 2011.

Stein, P.J. 2011. Active acoustic monitoring systems for detecting, localizing, tracking, and classifying 

marine mammals and fish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(4):2369.

Tenghamn, R. 2005. PGS electrical marine vibrator. PGS Tech Link 5(11):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, California, USA, 31 August - 1 September, 

2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, Auf der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. Pp. 23-24. 

Internet website: http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lw/publications/OKEANOS.%20Weilgart%202010.

%20Alternative%20technologies.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Thorson, P., K.A. Sawyer, and J. Pitcher. 2005. Anthropogenic sound and marine life background, 

issues, knowledge gaps, and research options. Report by SRS Technologies for the International 

Association of Oil and Gas Producers Exploration & Production Sound and Marine Life Joint 

Industry Project. Internet website: http://www.soundandmarinelife.org/Site/Products/SRSReport.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. Whale watching guidelines for the 

northeast region including the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prpr/pdfs/education/viewing_northeast.pdf. No post date. Accessed 

October 24, 2011.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-57

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. Southeast region marine mammal 

and turtle viewing guidelines. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prpr/education/southeast/

guidelines.htm. No post date. Accessed October 24, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. Report of the 2006 

NOAA National Passive Acoustics Workshop. Developing a Strategic Program Plan for NOAA’s 

Passive Acoustic Ocean Observing System (PAOOS). NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-F/SPO-76. Woods Hole, MA, April 11-13, 2006. March 2007.

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/shipstrikeshipstrike/doc/compliance_guide.pdf. No post date. Accessed 

August 5, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Defense. 2010. Report on the compatibility of Department of Defense activities with oil 

and gas resource development on the outer continental shelf. Prepared by the Office of the Deputy 

Undersecretary of Defense for Readiness. February 15, 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/offshore/dod_ocs_rept_02152010_release.pdf. Accessed November 12, 

2013.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Guidelines for providing 

geological and geophysical, hazards, and archaeological information pursuant to 30 CFR part 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. 2013. Regulatory development, policy 

and guidelines. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Regulatory-Development-Policy-andGuidelines/. Accessed September 4, 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/RegulationsRegulations/Notices-To-Lessees/20122012/2012-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/20122012/

2012-JOINT-G02-pdf.aspx. Accessed January 11, 2012.

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-to-Lessees/20122012/2012-BSEE-G01-pdf.aspx. Accessed January 11, 2012.

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.gomr.boemre.gov/homepghomepg/regulate/regs/ntls/2005%20NTLs/05-

g07.html. Accessed November 2, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2007. Final programmatic environmental 

impact statement for alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on 

the outer continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA 2007-046. 

Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Regulatory-Information/GuideTo-EIS.aspx. No post date. Accessed August 4, 2011. 
C-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/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.

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.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Notices-to-Lessees/2009/09-g06.aspx. 

Accessed January 24, 2012.

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.

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, 31 August – 1 September, 2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, Auf 

der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. 29 pp. Internet website: http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/

lw/publications/OKEANOS.%20Weilgart%202010.%20Alternative%20technologies.pdf. Accessed 

September 28, 2011.

Weilgart, L.S. 2012a. 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. Accessed September 11, 2013.

Weilgart, L.S. 2012b. Are there technological alternatives to air guns for oil and gas exploration to 

reduce potential noise impacts on cetaceans? In: Popper, A.N. and A. Hawkins, eds. The effects of 

noise on aquatic life. New York, NY: Springer Press. Advances in Experimental Medicine and 

Biology 730:605-607. 

Weir, C.R. and S.J. Dolman. 2007. Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation 

guidelines implemented during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide 

standard. J. Intl. Wildlife Law & Policy 10:1-27.

Weiser, M. 2010. ‘Bubble curtain’ planned for slough to steer salmon to safety. The Sacramento Bee. 

December 7, 2010.

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. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. 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. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/

TechGuide.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2013. 

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, USA, 31 August - 

1 September, 2009. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, Auf der Marienhöhe 15, D-64297 Darmstadt. 

P. 21. Internet website: http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lw/publications/OKEANOS.%20Weilgart

%202010.%20Alternative%20technologies.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, DC.
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-59

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.

Würsig, B., C.R. Greene, and T.A. Jefferson. 2000. Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce 

underwater noise of percussive piling. Mar. Environ. Res. 49:79-93.
C-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Attachment 1: Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol

Note: The following protocol has been developed for the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. 

The foundation of the protocol is similar to the Joint BOEM-BSEE NTL 2012-G02 (Implementation of 

Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program) (USDOI, BOEM and 

BSEE, 2012b) used in the Gulf of Mexico. The ecosystems and diversity of species present within the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas are distinct to this area, therefore protocols presented below may 

be similar to the types of operational procedures used in the Gulf of Mexico, but there are differences 

including the following exceptions:

• The protocol would apply to all seismic surveys in the AOI regardless of water depth. 

Joint NTL 2012-G02 does not apply to water depths less than 200 m (656 ft) in the 

Gulf of Mexico west of 88o W.

• The protocol includes a time-area closure for airgun surveys in North Atlantic right 

whale (NARW) critical habitat, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. Seasonal 

Management Areas (SMA), and Dynamic Management Areas (DMA).

• 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 of 180 dB re 1 

μPa, which is the current NMFS criterion for Level A harassment of cetaceans. The 

radius would be calculated for each survey but would not be less than 500 m 

(1,640 ft). In contrast, Joint NTL 2012-G02 specifies a single, fixed radius of 500 m 

(1,640 ft).

• Shutdown of the airgun array would be required any time a marine mammal or sea 

turtle is observed within the acoustic exclusion zone, whether due to the animal’s 

movement, the vessel’s movement, or because the animal surfaced inside the acoustic 

exclusion zone. There would be an exception for delphinids approaching the vessel 

or towed equipment at a speed and vector that indicates voluntary approach to bowride or chase towed equipment. In contrast, Joint NTL 2012-G02 requires the 

exclusion zone to be clear of all marine mammals and sea turtles for startup, but 

shutdown is required only for whales entering the exclusion zone.

• The “all clear” period to help ensure the absence of any marine mammal or sea turtle 

within the acoustic exclusion zone has been changed from 30 minutes to 60 minutes.

Background 

The use of an airgun or airgun arrays while conducting seismic operations may have an impact on 

marine wildlife, including marine mammals and sea turtles. Some marine mammals, such as the North 

Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whale 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), that inhabit the AOI are 

protected under the ESA, and all marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. All five sea turtle 

species inhabiting the AOI are protected under the ESA. They are the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), 

green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s ridley turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). 

In order to protect marine mammals and sea turtles during seismic operations, NMFS requires seismic 

operators to use ramp-up and visual observation procedures when conducting seismic surveys. 

Procedures for ramp-up, Protected Species Observer (PSO) training, visual monitoring, and reporting are 

described in detail in this protocol. These mitigation measures apply to all seismic survey operations 

conducted regardless of water depth. Performance of these mitigation measures is also a condition of the 

approval of applications for geophysical permits. Permittees must demonstrate compliance with these 

mitigation measures by submitting to BOEM certain reports detailed in this protocol. The measures 

contained herein would apply to all on-lease surveys conducted under 30 CFR part 550 and all off-lease 

surveys conducted under 30 CFR part 551 in the AOI. In addition, the measures would apply to any deep 

penetration seismic surveys conducted to evaluate formation suitability for carbon sequestration in the 

renewable energy program. 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-61

Definitions

Terms used in this protocol have the following meanings:

1. Airgun means a device that releases compressed air into the water column, creating 

an acoustical energy pulse with the purpose of penetrating the seafloor. 

2. Ramp-up means the gradual increase in emitted sound levels from an airgun array by 

systematically turning on the full complement of an array’s airguns over a period of 

time. 

3. Visual monitoring means the use of trained PSOs to scan the ocean surface visually 

for the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles. These observers must have 

successfully completed a PSO training program as described below. The area to be 

scanned visually includes, but is not limited to, the acoustic exclusion zone. Visual 

monitoring of an acoustic exclusion zone and adjacent waters is intended to establish 

and, when visual conditions allow, maintain a zone around the sound source and 

seismic vessel that is clear of all marine mammals and sea turtles, thereby reducing or 

eliminating the potential for injury.

4. Acoustic exclusion zone means the area at and below the sea surface within a radius 

to be determined by calculating the maximum range at which animals could be 

exposed to a received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa, which is the current 

NMFS criterion for Level A harassment of cetaceans. The distance is calculated 

from the center of an airgun array. Each survey vessel must maintain its own unique 

exclusion zone. The radius of the exclusion zone must be calculated independently 

for each survey based on the configuration of the airgun array and the ambient 

acoustic environment, but must not be less than 500 m (1,640 ft). 

5. Dolphins mean all marine mammal species in the family Delphinidae. This includes, 

among others, killer whales, pilot whales, and all of the “dolphin” species.

Time-Area Closure

No seismic airgun surveys will 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, seismic airgun surveys will not be allowed in active DMAs. A DMA is a temporary 

management zone that is created by NMFS in response to a reliable sighting of a North Atlantic right 

whale and expires after 15 days unless extended (Federal Register, 2002). 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 threshold for Level B harassment, as determined by 

field verification or modeling. 

The Southeast U.S. SMA, with seasonal restrictions in effect from November 1 to April 30, 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 from November 1 through 

April 30, is a combination of both continuous areas and half circles drawn with a 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.

If there are changes made to either the Southeast or the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA’s by NMFS in the 

future, the closure areas would be modified to align the closure areas with the new boundaries of the 

SMAs.

Acoustic Exclusion Zone

The acoustic exclusion zone is the primary mechanism 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 
C-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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 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.

While 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.

Ramp-Up Procedures

The intent of ramp-up is to warn marine mammals and sea turtles of pending seismic operations and 

to allow sufficient time for those animals to leave the immediate vicinity. Under normal conditions, 

animals sensitive to these activities are expected to move out of the area. For all seismic surveys, 

including airgun testing, use the ramp-up procedures described below to allow marine mammals and sea 

turtles to depart the exclusion zone before seismic surveying begins. 

Measures to conduct ramp-up procedures during all seismic survey operations, including airgun 

testing, are as follows: 

1. Visually monitor the acoustic exclusion zone and adjacent waters for the absence of

all marine mammals and sea turtles for at least 60 min before initiating ramp-up 

procedures. If none are detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not 

initiate ramp-up procedures at night or when you cannot visually monitor the 

exclusion zone for all marine mammals and sea turtles if your minimum source level 

drops below 160 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) (see measure 5).

2. Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The preferred airgun to begin 

with should be the smallest airgun, in terms of energy output (dB) and volume (in3

). 

3. 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.

4. Immediately shutdown all airguns, if any marine mammal or sea turtle are detected 

entering the defined exclusion zone. However, shutdown would not be required for 

dolphins approaching the vessel (or vessel’s towed equipment) that indicates a 

“voluntary approach” on behalf of the dolphin. A “voluntary approach” is defined as 

a clear and purposeful approach toward the vessel by the dolphin(s) with a speed and 

vector that indicates that the dolphin(s) is approaching the vessels and remains near 

the vessel or towed equipment. The intent of the dolphin(s) would be subject to the 

determination of the PSO. If the PSO determines that the dolphin(s) is actively trying 

to avoid the vessel or the towed equipment, the acoustic sources must be immediately 

as per his/her instruction. The PSO must record the details of any non-shutdowns in 

the presence of a dolphin, including the distance of the dolphin(s) from the vessel at 

the first sighting of the dolphin(s), their heading, where the dolphin positions itself 

relative to the vessel, how long they stay near the vessel, and any identifiable 

behaviors. After a shutdown, you may recommence seismic operations with a 

ramp-up of airguns only when the exclusion zone has been visually inspected for at 

least 60 min to help ensure the absence of all marine mammals and sea turtles. 

5. You 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) 

for the duration of certain activities. By maintaining the minimum source level, you 

will not be required to conduct the 60-min visual clearance of the exclusion zone 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-63

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 should be resumed immediately after the repairs are completed. 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 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. 

Protected Species Observer Program

Basic Requirements

PSOs will be required onboard seismic survey vessels to monitor the acoustic exclusion zone around 

the sound source to help ensure it is free of all marine mammals and sea turtles during operation of the 

survey equipment. All PSOs must be third-party observers and must have completed a PSO training 

program, described in the following section. The following guidelines shall be followed by PSOs on 

seismic survey vessels:

1. At least two PSOs will be required on duty at all times during daylight hours (dawn 

to dusk) when seismic 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.

2. Other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no additional duties 

shall be assigned to PSOs during their watch.

3. No PSO will be allowed more than 4 consecutive hours on watch as a visual 

observer. 

4. A break of at least 2 hr shall occur between 4-hr watches, and no other duties shall be 

assigned during this period.

5. A PSO’s combined watch schedule shall not exceed 12 hr during a 24-hr period. 

Training

All PSOs must have completed a PSO training program. The training program, shall be in 

accordance with the recommendations described in NOAA Fisheries Service 2012 National Standards for 

a Protected Species Observer and Data Management Program: A Model for Seismic Surveys (Baker et al., 

2013). All training programs offering to fulfill the observer training requirement must (1) furnish to 

BOEM a course information packet that includes the name and qualifications (i.e., experience, training 

completed, or educational background) of the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course 

reference material; (2) furnish each trainee with a document stating successful completion of the course; 

and (3) provide BOEM with names, affiliations, and dates of course completion of trainees. 

The training course must include the following elements: 

I. Brief overview of the MMPA and the ESA as they relate to seismic acquisition and 

protection of marine mammals and sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. 

II. Brief overview of seismic acquisition operations.

III. Overview of seismic mitigation measures and the PSO program. 

IV. Discussion of the role and responsibilities of the PSO, including

a) Legal requirements (why you are here and what you do); 

b) Professional behavior (code of conduct); 

c) Integrity; 

d) Authority of PSO to call for shutdown of seismic acquisition operations; 
C-64 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

e) Assigned duties; 

1) What can be asked of the observer; 

2) What cannot be asked of the observer; and

f) Reporting of violations and coercion; 

V. Identification of Atlantic marine mammals and sea turtles. 

VI. Cues and search methods for locating marine mammals and sea turtles. 

VII. Data collection and reporting requirements: 

a) Forms and reports to BOEM via email on the 1st and 15th of each month; and

b) Marine mammal or sea turtle in exclusion zone/shutdown report within 24 hr.

Basic training criteria have been established and must be adhered to by any entity that offers observer 

training. BOEM will not sanction particular trainers or training programs.

All seismic survey vessels must comply with separate guidance for vessel strike avoidance issued by 

BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Visual observers monitoring 

solely for vessel strike avoidance (e.g., during transit or other times when airguns are not operating) can 

be crew members, trained third party observers, or a combination of both. They do not have specific 

training requirements nor will they need to be approved by BOEM or BSEE.

Visual Monitoring Methods

The PSOs on duty will look for marine mammals and sea turtles using the naked eye and hand-held 

binoculars provided by the seismic vessel operator. The observers will stand watch in a suitable location 

that will not interfere with navigation or operation of the vessel and that affords the observers an optimal 

view of the sea surface. The observers will provide 360o coverage surrounding the seismic vessel and 

adjust their positions appropriately to help ensure adequate coverage of the entire area. These 

observations must be consistent, diligent, and free of distractions for the duration of the watch.

Visual monitoring will begin no less than 60 min prior to the beginning of ramp-up and continue until 

seismic operations cease or sighting conditions do not allow observation of the sea surface (e.g., fog, rain, 

darkness). If any marine mammal or sea turtle is observed, the observer should note and monitor the 

position (including latitude/longitude of the vessel and relative bearing and estimated distance to the 

animal) until the animal dives or moves out of visual range of the observer. Make sure you continue to 

observe for additional animals that may surface in the area, as often there are numerous animals that may 

surface at varying time intervals. At any time a marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within the 

exclusion zone, whether due to the animal’s movement, the vessel’s movement, or because the animal 

surfaced inside the exclusion zone, the observer will call for the immediate shutdown of the seismic 

operation, including airgun firing (the vessel may continue on its course but all airgun discharges must 

cease). Shutdown would not be required for dolphins approaching the vessel (or vessel’s towed 

equipment) that indicates a “voluntary approach” on behalf of the dolphin. A “voluntary approach” is 

defined as a clear and purposeful approach toward the vessel by the dolphin(s) with a speed and vector 

that indicates that the dolphin(s) is approaching the vessels and remains near the vessel or towed 

equipment. The vessel operator must comply immediately with such a call by an on-watch visual 

observer. Any disagreement or discussion should occur only after shutdown. After a shutdown, when no 

marine mammals or sea turtles are sighted for at least a 60-min period, ramp-up of the source array may 

begin. Ramp-up cannot begin unless conditions allow the sea surface to be visually inspected for marine 

mammals and sea turtles for 60 min prior to commencement of ramp-up (unless the method described in 

the section entitled “Passive Acoustic Monitoring” is used). Thus, ramp-up cannot begin after dark or in 

conditions that prohibit visual inspection (fog, rain, etc.) of the exclusion zone. Any shutdown due to a 

marine mammal or sea turtle sighting within the exclusion zone must be followed by a 60-min all-clear 

period and then a standard, full ramp-up. Any shutdown for other reasons, including, but not limited to, 

mechanical or electronic failure, resulting in the cessation of the sound source for a period greater than 

20 min, must also be followed by full ramp-up procedures. In recognition of occasional, short periods of 

the cessation of airgun firing for a variety of reasons, periods of airgun silence not exceeding 20 min in 

duration will not require ramp-up for the resumption of seismic operations if (1) visual surveys are 

continued diligently throughout the silent period (requiring daylight and reasonable sighting conditions), 

and (2) no marine mammals or sea turtles are observed in the exclusion zone. If marine mammals or sea 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-65

turtles are observed in the exclusion zone during the short silent period, resumption of seismic survey 

operations must be preceded by ramp-up.

Reporting

The importance of accurate and complete reporting of the results of the mitigation measures cannot be 

overstated. Only through diligent and careful reporting can BOEM, and subsequently the NMFS, 

determine the need for and effectiveness of mitigation measures. Information on observer effort and 

seismic operations is as important as animal sighting and behavior data. In order to accommodate various 

vessels’ bridge practices and preferences, vessel operators and observers may design data reporting forms 

in whatever format they deem convenient and appropriate. Alternatively, observers or vessel operators 

may adopt the United Kingdom’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee forms (available at their website, 

www.jncc.gov.uk). At a minimum, the following items should be recorded and included in reports to

BOEM: 

Observer Effort Report: BOEM requires the submission of observer effort reports to BSEE on the 

1st and the 15th of each month for each day seismic acquisition operations are conducted. These reports 

must include the following: 

1. vessel name; 

2. observers’ names and affiliations; 

3. survey type (e.g., site, 3D, 4D); 

4. BOEM permit number (for “off-lease seismic surveys”) or OCS lease number (for 

“on-lease seismic surveys”); 

5. date; 

6. time and latitude/longitude when daily visual survey began; 

7. time and latitude/longitude when daily visual survey ended; and 

8. average environmental conditions while on each visual survey rotation and session as 

well as when any conditions change during the rotation, each session, including: 

a. wind speed and direction; 

b. sea state (glassy, slight, choppy, rough, or Beaufort scale); 

c. swell (low, medium, high, or swell height in meters); and 

d. overall visibility (poor, moderate, good). 

Survey Report: BOEM requires the submission of survey reports to BSEE on the 1st and the 15th of 

the month for each day seismic acquisition operations are conducted and airguns are discharged. These 

reports must include the following: 

1. vessel name; 

2. survey type (e.g., site, 3D, 4D); 

3. BOEM permit number (for “off-lease seismic surveys”) or OCS lease number (for 

“on-lease seismic surveys”), if applicable; 

4. date; 

5. time pre-ramp-up survey begins; 

6. observations of marine mammals and sea turtles seen during pre-ramp-up surveys; 

7. time ramp-up begins;

8. observations of marine mammals and sea turtles seen during ramp-up; 

9. time sound source (airguns or HRG equipment) is operating at the desired intensity; 

10. observations of marine mammals and sea turtles seen during surveys; 

11. if marine mammals or sea turtles were seen, was any action taken (i.e., survey 

delayed, guns shut down)? 

12. reason that marine mammals and sea turtles might not have been observed 

(e.g., swell, glare, fog); and 

13. time sound source (airgun array or HRG equipment) stops firing. 
C-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Sighting Report: BOEM shall require the submission of reports to BSEE for marine mammals and 

sea turtles sighted during seismic and HRG surveys on the 1st and the 15th of each month except as 

indicated below. These reports are in addition to any reports required as a condition of the geophysical 

permit and must include the following: 

1. vessel name; 

2. survey type (e.g., site, 3D, 4D); 

3. BOEM permit number (for “off-lease seismic surveys”) or OCS lease number (for 

“on-lease seismic surveys”); 

4. date; 

5. time; 

6. watch status (Were you on watch or was this sighting made opportunistically by you 

or someone else?); 

7. observer or person who made the sighting; 

8. latitude/longitude of vessel; 

9. bearing of vessel; (true compass direction); 

10. bearing (true compass direction) and estimated range to animal(s) at first sighting; 

11. water depth (meters); 

12. species (or identification to lowest possible taxonomic level); 

13. certainty of identification (sure, most likely, best guess); 

14. total number of animals; 

15. number of juveniles; 

16. description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, 

including length, shape, color and pattern, scars or marks, shape and size of dorsal 

fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics); 

17. direction of animal’s travel – compass direction; 

18. direction of animal’s travel – related to the vessel (drawing preferably); 

19. behavior (as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in 

behavior); 

20. activity of vessel; 

21. airguns firing? (yes or no); and 

22. closest distance (meters) to animals from center of airgun or airgun array (whether 

firing or not). 

Note: If this sighting was of a marine mammal or sea turtle within the exclusion zone that 

resulted in a shutdown of the airguns, include in the sighting report the observed behavior of the 

animal(s) before shutdown, the observed behavior following shutdown (specifically noting any change in 

behavior), and the length of time between shutdown and subsequent ramp-up to resume the seismic 

survey (note if seismic survey was not resumed as soon as possible following shutdown). Send this report 

to BOEM within 24 hr of the shutdown. These sightings should also be included in the first regular 

semi-monthly report following the incident. 

Additional information, important points, and comments are encouraged. All reports will be 

submitted to BOEM on the 1st and the 15th of each month (with one exception noted above). Forms 

should be scanned (or data typed) and sent via email to BOEM.

Please note that these marine mammal and sea turtle reports are in addition to any reports required as 

a condition of the geophysical permit. 

Borehole Seismic Surveys

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:

• During daylight hours, when visual observations of the exclusion zone are being 

performed as required in this protocol, borehole seismic operations will not be required to 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-67

ramp-up for shutdowns of 60 min or less in duration, as long as no marine mammals or 

sea turtles are observed in the exclusion zone during the shutdown. If a marine mammal 

or sea turtle is sighted in the exclusion zone, ramp-up is required and may begin only 

after visual surveys confirm that the exclusion zone has been clear for 60 min. 

• During nighttime or when conditions prohibit visual observation of the exclusion zone, 

ramp-up will not be required for shutdowns of 20 min or less in duration. For borehole 

seismic surveys that utilize passive acoustics during nighttime and periods of poor 

visibility, ramp-up is not required for shutdowns of 30 min or less. 

• Nighttime or poor visibility ramp-up is allowed only when passive acoustics are used to 

help ensure that no marine mammals are present in the exclusion zone (as for all other 

seismic surveys). Operators are strongly encouraged to acquire the survey in daylight 

hours when possible. 

• PSOs must be used during daylight hours, as required in this protocol, and may be 

stationed either on the source boat or on the associated drilling rig or platform if a clear 

view of the sea surface in the exclusion zone and adjacent waters is available. 

• All other mitigations and provisions for seismic surveys as set forth in this protocol will 

apply to borehole seismic surveys. 

• Reports should reference OCS Lease Number, Area/Block and Borehole Number.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Whales, dolphins, and porpoises are very vocal marine mammals, and periods of silence are usually 

short and most often occur when these animals are at the surface and may be detected using visual 

observers. However, marine mammals are at the greatest risk of potential injury from seismic airguns 

when they are submerged and under the airgun array. PAM has been shown to be very effective at 

detecting submerged and diving sperm whales, and some other marine mammal species, when they are 

not detectable by visual observation. The use of PAM is required as part of the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol. Inclusion of PAM does not relieve an operator of any of the mitigations (including visual 

observations) in this protocol, with the following exception: monitoring for marine mammals with a 

passive acoustic array by an observer proficient in its use will allow ramp-up and the subsequent start of a 

seismic survey during times of reduced visibility (darkness, fog, rain, etc.) when such ramp-up otherwise 

would not be permitted using only visual observers. An assessment of PAM must be included of the 

usefulness, effectiveness, and problems encountered with the use of that method of marine mammal 

detection in the reports described in this protocol. A description of the PAM system, the software used, 

and the monitoring plan must also be reported to BOEM at the beginning of its use.
C-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Attachment 2: HRG Survey Protocol

This protocol was developed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to specify 

mitigation requirements for high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys in the Area of Interest (AOI) for 

the Atlantic Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

It applies to HRG surveys conducted using only electromechanical sources such as side-scan sonar; 

boomers, sparkers, chirp subbottom profilers; and single beam and multibeam depth sounders. Other 

HRG surveys using airguns are excluded from this protocol and must comply instead with the Seismic 

Airgun Survey Protocol. 

Background 

Certain HRG survey equipment, depending on the operating frequency and source level, may have an 

impact on marine wildlife, including marine mammals and sea turtles. Some marine mammals, such as 

the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale 

(Balaenoptera physalus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), 

sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), and Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), that 

inhabit the AOI are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all marine mammals are 

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). All five sea turtle species inhabiting the 

AOI are protected under the ESA. They are the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and

leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The mitigation requirements in this protocol will help to 

avoid and/or reduce the potential for impacts on marine mammals and turtles.

Overview of Protocol Requirements

The HRG Survey Protocol requirements can be summarized as follows:

• All HRG operators must comply with separate guidance for vessel strike avoidance 

issued by BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

• If active acoustic sources will operate above 200 kHz, no additional mitigation for 

acoustic exclusion zones, PSO requirements, startup or shutdown requirements, or 

time-area closures would be conditioned to authorizations.

• If at least one acoustic source will operate at frequencies at and below 200 kHz, an 

acoustic exclusion zone is required year-round and throughout the AOI, with visual 

monitoring by trained PSOs and startup and shutdown requirements as described in the 

protocol.

• Only HRG surveys using frequencies greater than 30 kHz will be allowed to operate 

within NARW critical habitat from November 15 through April 15 and in Dynamic 

Management Areas (DMA). See the “Time-Area Closures” section for details. All other 

HRG surveys would be permitted or authorized year-round throughout the AOI.

• HRG surveys using frequencies above 1.6 kHz in sea turtle closure area for Brevard 

County are permitted or authorized year-round. HRG surveys below 1.6 kHz would need 

additional consultation with NMFS prior to approval or authorization. 

A flow chart summarizing HRG Protocol Requirements for Alternative A is presented in 

Figure HRG-1. The corresponding requirements for Alternative B are shown in Figure HRG-2. 

Time-Area Closures

Only HRG surveys using frequencies greater than 30 kHz would be allowed to operate within NARW 

critical habitat from November 15 through April 15. Surveys in NARW critical habitat using sources 

operating 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. 

Any surveys authorized by BOEM outside, but in proximity to, NARW critical habitat boundaries are 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-69

required to remain at a distance such, for all sound sources at and below 30 kHz, received levels at these 

boundaries are no more than the Level B threshold. 

A DMA is a temporary management zone that is created by NMFS in response to a reliable sighting 

of a NARW and expires after 15 days unless extended (Federal Register, 2002). If a DMA is established

during the course of an HRG survey, further use of all sound sources in that DMA must be discontinued 

within 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, received levels at these boundaries are no more than

the Level B threshold. 

Except as noted above for HRG surveys using frequencies at and below 30 kHz, all other HRG 

surveys would be permitted or authorized year-round throughout the AOI.

Acoustic Exclusion Zone

All HRG surveys conducted with one or more sound sources operating at frequencies at and below

200 kHz will be required to establish an acoustic exclusion zone. An acoustic exclusion zone is not 

required for HRG surveys in which all active sound sources would operate at frequencies greater than 

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, which is the current NMFS 

threshold for Level A harassment of marine mammals. If the calculated Level A threshold radius for a 

source exceeds 200 m (656 ft), the 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 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. Depending on the source levels, operational frequency, 

and deployment mode of the geophysical equipment used, the 200 m (656 ft) exclusion zone could also 

encompass the Level B harassment zone. 

Protected Species Observer Program

All HRG surveys having an acoustic exclusion zone (i.e., those conducted using one or more sound 

sources operating at and below 200 kHz) must use PSOs to monitor the acoustic exclusion zone. The 

PSOs can be trained crew members and/or third party observers. 

A PSO for an HRG survey is defined as someone who has successfully completed a PSO training 

course approved by BOEM. All PSO resumes must be submitted to BOEM for approval prior to survey 

operations. Basic training criteria have been established and must be adhered to by any entity that offers 

PSO training. BOEM will not sanction particular trainers or training programs.

Visual Monitoring Requirements

The following visual monitoring requirements apply only to non-airgun HRG surveys in which at 

least one acoustic source will operate at frequencies at and below 200 kHz. If there are no acoustic 

sources operating at frequencies at and below 200 kHz, there will be no acoustic exclusion zone and there 

are no requirements for PSOs. However, all HRG operators must comply with separate guidance for 

vessel strike avoidance issued by BOEM and BSEE.

Visual monitoring of the acoustic exclusion zone must be conducted 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).

The requirements for PSOs and their roles are as follows: 

a. At least one PSO will be required on duty at all times to monitor the acoustic 

exclusion zone when acoustic sources are operating. 
C-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

b. The PSO(s) will monitor an acoustic exclusion zone for protected species and 

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, operators 

would monitor the waters around the acoustic exclusion zone using shipboard 

lighting, enhanced vision equipment, night-vision equipment and/or Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring (PAM). 

c. The following schedule limitations shall apply to PSOs during HRG survey activities:

1. Other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no additional 

duties shall be assigned to PSOs during their 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, and no other 

duties shall be assigned during this period.

4. A PSO’s combined watch schedule shall not exceed 12 hr during a 24-hr period. 

The PSO(s) on duty will look for marine mammals and sea turtles using the naked eye and hand-held 

binoculars. They will stand watch in a suitable location that will not interfere with navigation or 

operation of the vessel and that affords the PSO an optimal view of the sea surface. The PSOs will 

provide 360o coverage surrounding the survey vessel and adjust their position(s) appropriately to help 

ensure adequate coverage of the entire area. These observations must be consistent, diligent, and free of 

distractions for the duration of the watch.

Startup and Shutdown Requirements

Monitoring of the acoustic exclusion zone must begin no less than 60 min prior to start-up and 

continue until operations cease. Immediate shutdown of the active acoustic sound source(s) 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 exclusion zone is clear of all

marine mammals and sea turtles for 60 min.

Shutdown would not be required for delphinids approaching the acoustic exclusion zone that indicates 

a “voluntary approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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 shutdown as per his/her instruction. The PSO must record the details of any non-shutdowns 

in the presence of a delphinid, 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, HRG operations may 

recommence only when the exclusion zone has been visually inspected for at least 60 min to help ensure 

the absence of all marine mammals and sea turtles.

Reporting

The importance of accurate and complete reporting of the results of the mitigation measures cannot be 

overstated. Only through diligent and careful reporting can BOEM, and subsequently the NMFS, 

determine the need for and effectiveness of mitigation measures. Information on observer effort and 

seismic operations is as important as animal sighting and behavior data. In order to accommodate various 

vessels’ bridge practices and preferences, vessel operators and observers may design data reporting forms 

in whatever format they deem convenient and appropriate. Alternatively, observers or vessel operators 

may adopt the United Kingdom’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee forms (available at their website, 

www.jncc.gov.uk). At a minimum, the following items should be recorded and included in reports to

BOEM: 
Existing Regulations, Protective Measures, and Mitigation C-71

Protected Species Observer Reports: Data on all protected species observations must be recorded 

by the PSO based on standard marine mammal observer data collection protocols. This information must 

include the following: 

1. vessel name; 

2. observers’ names, affiliations and resumes; 

3. date; 

4. time and latitude/longitude when daily visual survey began; 

5. time and latitude/longitude when daily visual survey ended; and 

6. average environmental conditions during visual surveys including: 

a. wind speed and direction; 

b. sea state (glassy, slight, choppy, rough, or Beaufort scale); 

c. swell (low, medium, high, or swell height in meters); and 

d. overall visibility (poor, moderate, good). 

7. species (or identification to lowest possible taxonomic level); 

8. certainty of identification (sure, most likely, best guess); 

9. total number of animals; 

10. number of calves, and juveniles (if distinguishable); 

11. description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, 

including length, shape, color and pattern, scars or marks, shape and size of 

dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics); 

12. direction of animal’s travel – related to the vessel (drawing preferably); 

13. behavior (as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in 

behavior); and

14. activity of vessel when sighting occurred.

Note: If this sighting was of a marine mammal or sea turtle within the exclusion zone that 

resulted in a shutdown of survey equipment, include in the sighting report the observed behavior of the 

animal(s) before shutdown, the observed behavior following shutdown (specifically noting any change in 

behavior), and the length of time between shutdown and restart of the survey (note if survey was not 

resumed as soon as possible following shutdown). Send this report to BOEM within 24 hr of the 

shutdown. These sightings should also be included in the first regular semi-monthly report following the 

incident. 

Additional information, important points, and comments are encouraged. All reports will be 

submitted to BOEM on the 1st and the 15th of each month (with one exception noted above). Forms 

should be scanned (or data typed) and sent via email to BOEM.

Please note that these marine mammal and sea turtle reports are in addition to any reports required as 

a condition of the geophysical permit or authorization. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring

PAM is not currently included as recommended mitigation in the HRG Survey Protocol for 

Alternative A. The use of PAM for HRG surveys would be evaluated and approved on an individual 

project basis, during the activity-specific assessment that is part of the application process. The 

circumstances specific to each HRG geophysical survey would be considered in determining the utility 

and cost-effectiveness of PAM. Operators may request the flexibility to work at night in order to save 

costs associated with returning to port. In such cases an alternative monitoring strategy for night-time 

operations will be discussed. 
C-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure HRG-1. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under Alternative A.

Figure HRG-2. Flow Chart Summarizing HRG Survey Protocol Requirements under Alternative B.

HRG Survey Protocol Requirements 

under Alternative A

Are Any Sources ≤ 200 kHz?

YES

(Acoustic Exclusion Zone Required)

NO

(No Acoustic Exclusion Zone)

Are Any Sources ≤ 30 

kHz?

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

- Vessel Strike Avoidance

- No Time-Area Closures

- Acoustic Exclusion Zone Required

- Visual Monitoring by Trained PSOs

- Vessel Strike Avoidance

- No Time-Area Closures

- No Acoustic Exclusion Zone

- No PSO requirements

- No additional mitigation other than 

 Vessel Strike Avoidance

YES
APPENDIX D 

 

ACOUSTIC MODELING REPORT

ACOUSTIC MODELING REPORT

 

ATLANTIC G&G PROGRAMMATIC EIS

Prepared by:

Mikhail Zykov and Scott Carr

JASCO Applied Sciences

202 - 32 Troop Avenue

Dartmouth, NS, Canada B3B 1Z1

Prepared for:

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue

Stuart, Florida 34997

Under contract to:

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

381 Elden Street, MS 2100

Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817

Acoustic Modeling Report D-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ D-1

2. BASICS OF UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS................................................................................... D-1

2.1. Acoustic Metrics...................................................................................................................... D-1

2.2. Major Factors Affecting Underwater Sound Propagation........................................................ D-2

2.2.1. Geometric Spreading.................................................................................................... D-2

2.2.2. Absorption.................................................................................................................... D-3

2.2.3. Refraction..................................................................................................................... D-3

2.2.4. Scattering...................................................................................................................... D-5

2.2.5. Bathymetry................................................................................................................... D-5

2.2.6. Source Depth................................................................................................................ D-5

2.2.7. Bottom Loss................................................................................................................. D-6

2.3. Acoustic Impact Criteria .......................................................................................................... D-6

2.3.1. M-Weighting ................................................................................................................ D-6

2.3.2. Consideration of the Minimum Integration Time ........................................................ D-8

2.3.3. National Marine Fisheries Service Criteria .................................................................. D-8

2.3.4. Southall Criteria ........................................................................................................... D-9

3. ACOUSTIC SOURCES.................................................................................................................... D-9

3.1. Airgun Sources....................................................................................................................... D-10

3.1.1. Seismic Survey Overview .......................................................................................... D-10

3.1.2. Airgun Operating Principles....................................................................................... D-11

3.1.3. Airgun Array Source Levels ...................................................................................... D-12

3.1.4. Airgun Array Source Model....................................................................................... D-12

3.1.5. Large Airgun Array.................................................................................................... D-13

3.1.6. Small Airgun Array.................................................................................................... D-16

3.2. Electromechanical Sources.................................................................................................... D-17

3.2.1. Beam Pattern Calculation........................................................................................... D-17

3.2.2. Beam Pattern of a Circular Transducer...................................................................... D-18

3.2.3. Beam Pattern of a Rectangular Transducer................................................................ D-19

3.2.4. Beam Pattern of a Multibeam System........................................................................ D-20

3.2.5. Boomer....................................................................................................................... D-21

3.2.6. Side-Scan Sonar ......................................................................................................... D-25

3.2.7. Chirp Subbottom Profiler........................................................................................... D-27

3.2.8. Multibeam Depth Sounder ......................................................................................... D-31

3.2.9. Sparker ....................................................................................................................... D-32

4. MODELING METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... D-34

4.1. Sound Propagation Model: MONM...................................................................................... D-34

4.1.1. Low-Frequency – MONM-RAM............................................................................... D-34

4.1.2. Mid- and High-Frequency – MONM-BELLHOP...................................................... D-35

4.1.3. Estimating 90 Percent RMS SPL from SEL for Airgun Array Sources..................... D-35

4.2. Modeling Procedure............................................................................................................... D-36

4.2.1. Area of Interest and Proposed Activities.................................................................... D-36

4.2.2. Model Profiles............................................................................................................ D-39
D-iv Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Page

4.2.3. Model Receiver Depths.............................................................................................. D-40

4.2.4. Model Radial Step Size .............................................................................................. D-41

4.3. Bathymetry and Acoustic Parameters.................................................................................... D-41

4.3.1. Bathymetry................................................................................................................. D-41

4.3.2. Geoacoustic Properties............................................................................................... D-41

4.3.3. Sound Speed Profiles ................................................................................................. D-43

4.4. Modeling Scenarios ............................................................................................................... D-46

4.5. Classification of Acoustic Environments............................................................................... D-46

4.5.1. Shallow Continental Shelf.......................................................................................... D-46

4.5.2. Continental Shelf........................................................................................................ D-48

4.5.3. Continental Slope ....................................................................................................... D-49

4.5.4. Deep Ocean ................................................................................................................ D-50

5. MODEL RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ D-51

6. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................... D-55

ATTACHMENT A: COMMENTS ON THE BOOMER SOURCE LEVELS ..................................... D-60

ATTACHMENT B: SOUND MAPS..................................................................................................... D-62

ATTACHMENT C: PREDICTED RANGES TO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD LEVELS.................... D-87
Acoustic Modeling Report D-v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure D-1. Sample Plot of Absorption Loss Versus Frequency ........................................................... D-3

Figure D-2. Generic Sound Speed Profile with Some Common Features Defined................................ D-4

Figure D-3. An Example of an Acoustic Field from an Airgun Array Source with Convergence 

Zones................................................................................................................................... D-5

Figure D-4. Standard M-Weighting Curves for Low-, Mid-, and High-Frequency Cetaceans and 

Pinnipeds Underwater......................................................................................................... D-7

Figure D-5. Overpressure Signature for a Single Airgun, Showing the Primary Peak and the 

Bubble Pulse ..................................................................................................................... D-11

Figure D-6. Layout of the 5,400 in3 Seismic Array.............................................................................. D-14

Figure D-7. Predicted Overpressure Signature (left) and Power Spectrum (right) for the 5,400 

in3 Airgun Array in the Broadside and Endfire Directions. Surface Ghosts (Effects 

of the Pulse Reflection at the Water Surface) Are Not Included in These Signatures...... D-14

Figure D-8. Azimuthal Directivity Pattern of SLs for the 5,400 in3 Array at 6.5 m Depth, Shown 

in Third-Octave Bands by Center Frequency.................................................................... D-15

Figure D-9. Maximum Directional SLs in Each Third-Octave Band for the 5,400 in3 Airgun 

Array ................................................................................................................................. D-16

Figure D-10. Maximum Directional SLs in Each Third-Octave Band for the 90 in3 Airgun Array ...... D-17

Figure D-11. Typical 3D Beam Pattern for a Circular Transducer......................................................... D-18

Figure D-12. 2D Polar Representation of a Beam Pattern Obtained by In Situ Measurement 

(Vertical Slice) of a Transducer Used by Kongsberg ....................................................... D-18

Figure D-13. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Circular Transducer with a Beam Width of 20°............... D-19

Figure D-14. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Rectangular Transducer With a 4°×10° Beam Width...... D-20

Figure D-15. Calculated Beam Pattern for Two Rectangular Transducers Engaged 

Simultaneously, with Individual Beam Widths of 1.5°×50°, and a Declination 

Angle of 25°...................................................................................................................... D-20

Figure D-16. A Surface Towed Boomer Source .................................................................................... D-21

Figure D-17. Source Pulse of the AA201 Boomer at 100 J Energy Output ........................................... D-21

Figure D-18. An Example of a Representative Boomer Plate System ................................................... D-22

Figure D-19. Calculated Beam Pattern for the Representative Boomer at (a) 1.25 and 

(b) 16.0 kHz ...................................................................................................................... D-24

Figure D-20. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for the Representative Boomer at (a) 1.25 

and (b) 16.0 kHz; Across-Track Direction........................................................................ D-24

Figure D-21. An Example of a Representative Side-Scan Sonar System............................................... D-25

Figure D-22. Calculated Beam Pattern for the Representative Side-Scan Sonar at 100 kHz, 

Operating in High-Speed Mode ........................................................................................ D-26

Figure D-23. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for the Representative Side-Scan Sonar at 

100 kHz Operating in High-Speed Mode; (left) Along- and (right) Across-Track 

Directions.......................................................................................................................... D-26

Figure D-24. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler at 3.5 kHz....... D-28
D-vi Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

LIST OF FIGURES

(CONTINUED)

Page

Figure D-25. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler at 12 kHz........ D-28

Figure D-26. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler at 200 kHz...... D-29

Figure D-27. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for a Representative Chirp Subbottom 

Profiler Operating at 3.5 kHz............................................................................................ D-29

Figure D-28. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for a Representative Chirp Subbottom 

Profiler Operating at 12 kHz (left) Along- and (right) Across-Track Directions ............. D-30

Figure D-29. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for a Representative Chirp Subbottom 

Profiler Operating at 200 kHz........................................................................................... D-30

Figure D-30. Calculated Beam Pattern for the Representative Multibeam Depth Sounder at 

240 kHz............................................................................................................................. D-31

Figure D-31. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for the Representative Multibeam Depth 

Sounder at 240 kHz; (left) Along- and (right) Across-Track Directions.......................... D-32

Figure D-32. The Sparker SQUID 500 (Applied Acoustic Engineering Ltd., 2010c) ........................... D-33

Figure D-33. Example of the pulse frequency spectrum from a Delta Sparker at 6 kJ (Applied 

Acoustic Engineering Ltd., 2010a) ................................................................................... D-33

Figure D-34. SPL–SEL Conversion Functions for Different Water Depths.......................................... D-36

Figure D-35. Area of Interest with the Locations of the Modeling Sites ............................................... D-37

Figure D-36. Sound Velocity Profiles for Winter Season Used in This Modeling Study: Fully 

Extended to the Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right)................ D-44

Figure D-37. Sound Velocity Profiles for Spring Season Used in This Modeling Study: Fully 

Extended to the Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right)................ D-44

Figure D-38. Sound Velocity Profiles for Summer Seasons Used in This Modeling Study: Fully 

Extended to the Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right)................ D-45

Figure D-39. Sound Velocity Profiles for Fall Season Used in This Modeling Study: Fully 

Extended to the Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right)................ D-45

Figure D-40. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 22 (SVP 03) ...... D-48

Figure D-41. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 23 (SVP 03). ..... D-48

Figure D-42. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 14 (SVP 08) ...... D-49

Figure D-43. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 3 (SVP 01). ....... D-50

Figure D-44. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 1 (SVP 01) ........ D-50
Acoustic Modeling Report D-vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table D-1. Low-Frequency (flo) and High-Frequency (fhi) Cutoff Parameters for Standard 

Marine Mammal M-Weighting Curves............................................................................... D-8

Table D-2. Southall Criteria for Injury.................................................................................................. D-9

Table D-3. List of Acoustic Source Types Modeled in This Study Indicating Representative 

Equipment Types, Operating Frequencies, and Survey Application ................................ D-10

Table D-4. The 5,400 in3 Airgun Array Pressure Characteristics from the AASM Model at 

6.5 m Depth....................................................................................................................... D-15

Table D-5. The 90 in3 Airgun Array Pressure Characteristics from the AASM Model at 6.5 m 

Depth................................................................................................................................. D-16

Table D-6. Representative Boomer Specifications ............................................................................. D-23

Table D-7. Estimated Source Levels (rms SPL) and Beam Width from the Representative 

Boomer Distributed into Twenty 1/3-Octave Bands......................................................... D-23

Table D-8. Representative Side-Scan Sonar Parameters for the High-Speed and

High-Definition (HD) Operating Modes........................................................................... D-25

Table D-9. Variable Angular Steps of the Modeling Radials in Different Sectors............................. D-27

Table D-10. Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler Specifications.................................................. D-28

Table D-11. Representative Multibeam Depth Sounder Specifications................................................ D-31

Table D-12. Variable Angular Steps of the Modeling Radials in Different Sectors............................. D-32

Table D-13. SQUID 500 Sparker Specifications .................................................................................. D-33

Table D-14. List of Proposed G&G Activities and Sources ................................................................. D-38

Table D-15. Modeling Site Information................................................................................................ D-39

Table D-16. Modeling Profile Information for Airgun Array Sources at Different Sites..................... D-40

Table D-17. Modeling Profile Information for Electromechanical Sources Except the Boomer.......... D-40

Table D-18. Geoacoustic Model for the Clay Sediments...................................................................... D-42

Table D-19. Geoacoustic Model for the Sand Sediments ..................................................................... D-42

Table D-20. The List of Sound Speed Profiles Used in This Study...................................................... D-43

Table D-21. List of Modeling Scenarios............................................................................................... D-47

Table D-22. Summary of the Predicted Threshold Radii (in Meters) for the 180 and 160 dB SPL 

(rms) for Airgun Array Sources........................................................................................ D-52

Table D-23. Summary of the Predicted Threshold Radii (in Meters) for 180 and 160 dB SPL 

(rms) for Electromechanical Sources................................................................................ D-52

Table D-24. Adjustment of the 180-dB and 160-dB Threshold Radii Based on the Difference 

between the Pulse Length of the Electromechanical Sources and the Minimum 

Integration Time of the Mammalian Hearing Apparatus (100 ms)................................... D-53

Table D-25. Safety Zone Radii (in Meters) Based on Southall et al. (2007) Injury Criterion for 

the Maximum Peak Pressure............................................................................................. D-53

Table D-26. Safety Zone Radii (in Meters) for the Airgun Array Sources Based on Southall et al. 

(2007) Injury Criterion for the Sound Exposure Level (198 dB re 1 μPa2 s) ................... D-54
D-viii Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

LIST OF TABLES

(CONTINUED)

Page

Table D-27. Safety Zone Radii (in Meters) Based on Southall et al. (2007) Injury Criterion 

Based on the Sound Exposure Level (198 dB re 1 μPa2

·s)............................................... D-54
Acoustic Modeling Report D-ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2D two-dimensional

3D three-dimensional

AASM Airgun Array Source Model

AIM Acoustic Integration Model©

ANSI American National Standard 

Institute

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management

C Celsius

cm centimeter

CW continuous wave

dB decibel

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

G&G geological and geophysical

GDEM Generalized Digital Environmental 

Model

GI generator-injector

HRG high-resolution geophysical

Hz hertz

in inch

J joule

kHz kilohertz

kJ kilojoule

km kilometer

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt

m meter

MAI Marine Acoustics, Inc.

mbsf meters below seafloor

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MONM Marine Operations Noise Model

MOODS Master Oceanographic 

Observational Data Set

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

nmi nautical mile

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

ODP Ocean Drilling Program 

PE parabolic equation

PTS Permanent Threshold Shift

ppt parts per thousand

RAM Range-dependent Acoustic Model

RL received level

rms root-mean-square

s second

SEL sound exposure level

SL source level

SPL sound pressure level

TL transmission loss

TTS Temporary Threshold Shift

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VSP vertical seismic profiling

Acoustic Modeling Report D-1 

1. INTRODUCTION

This report provides technical information in support of the Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) prepared by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) concerning the potential 

environmental effects of geological and geophysical (G&G) exploration activities on the mid- and south 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Specifically, this document describes the procedures used to 

estimate the sound fields that would be generated by airgun arrays and electromechanical sources during 

said activities. Some background information on acoustic metrics and on the principal factors that affect 

sound propagation in the water is also provided as a preamble. 

The proposed G&G exploration activities encompass a wide range of marine geotechnical studies 

using acoustic sources including seismic surveying (high-resolution, 2D, 3D, and vertical seismic 

profiling [VSP]), shallow sediment surveying, and shallow hazard assessment. The activities are to take 

place in different water depths (shallow water, shelf, slope, and deep ocean environments) and in different 

seasons of the year.

The description as well as typical acoustic characteristics and specifications were given for seven 

acoustic sources: large and small airgun arrays, side-scan sonar, boomer subbottom profiler, chirp 

subbottom profiler, multibeam depth sounder, and sparker. These acoustic sources, with the exclusion of 

sparker, were considered for the modeling study to provide example acoustic fields for different types of 

G&G exploration activities.

Twenty-two modeling sites were defined throughout the Area of Interest (AOI). The water depth at 

the sites varied from 30-5,400 meters (m). Two types of bottom composition were considered: sand and 

clay, their selection depending on the water depth at the source. Twelve possible sound speed profiles for 

the water column were used to cover the variation of the sound velocity distribution in the water with 

location and season. Thirty-five distinct propagation scenarios resulted from considering different sound 

speed profiles at some of the modeling sites. Multiple sources were modeled for each scenario, yielding a 

total of 105 acoustic field estimates.

Two acoustic propagation models were employed to estimate the acoustic field radiated by the sound 

sources. A version of JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM), based on the 

Range-dependent Acoustic Model (RAM) parabolic-equations model, MONM-RAM, was used to 

estimate the sound exposure levels (SELs) for low-frequency sources (below 2 kilohertz [kHz]) such as 

the airgun arrays and boomer. A version of MONM based on the BELLHOP ray-trace model,

MONM-BELLHOP, was used to model the sound propagation from mid- and high-frequency sources. 

Both models take into account the geoacoustic properties of the sea bottom, vertical sound speed profile 

in the water column, range-dependent bathymetry, and the directivity of the source.

The directional source levels (SLs) for the airgun arrays were modeled using the Airgun Array Source 

Model (AASM) based on the specifications of the source such as the arrangement and volume of the 

guns, firing pressure, and depth below the sea surface. The directivity function of the high-frequency 

sources was numerically modeled from technical specifications such as beam width, number of beams, 

and main beam axis direction; these were obtained from the manufacturer’s product specification sheets 

or through direct contact with the manufacturer. The modeled directional SLs were used as the input for 

the acoustic propagation model.

2. BASICS OF UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS

2.1. ACOUSTIC METRICS

Various sound level metrics are commonly used to express the loudness of noise and to estimate its 

effects on marine life. The three primary metrics of importance in this study are peak pressure, 

root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure level (SPL), and SEL. Some of the criteria used to assess 

potential bioacoustic impacts on marine species are expressed in terms of sound pressure. Most 

relevantly, the safety and disturbance thresholds currently applied to marine seismic surveys by the 

U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are based on the rms SPL metric as adapted for 

impulsive sound sources. Other criteria proposed in more recent studies, like Southall et al. (2007), place 

greater emphasis on sound exposure and define impact thresholds in terms of the SEL metric.
D-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The peak pressure is defined as the maximum absolute value of the amplitude of a pressure time 

series, p(t). 

The rms SPL (dB re 1 μPa, [American National Standard Institute] ANSI symbol Lp) is the rms of the 

pressure level, p(t), received at a location over a time interval, T: 















 = ∫

T

p dttp T

L )( 1 log10 2

10 (1) 

The rms SPL can be thought of as a measure of the average pressure or as the “effective” pressure 

over the duration of an acoustic event, such as a single acoustic pulse. Because the time interval, T, is 

used as a divisor, pulses that are more spread out in time have a lower rms SPL for the same total acoustic 

energy. The time interval, T, is conventionally defined as the “90 percent energy pulse duration” rather 

than a fixed time window (Malme et al., 1986, Greene, 1997, McCauley et al., 1998). 

For a pure sine wave the peak pressure (dB re 1 μPa, ANSI symbol Lpk) and rms SPL are related 

through a simple expression (Laughton and Warne, 2003):

)( dB3 1 2log10 2

10 +=













 = ∫ p

T

pk Ldttp T

L (2) 

Sound exposure level (dB re 1 μPa2·s, ANSI symbol LE) is the time integral of the square pressure 

over a fixed time interval, T: 















 = ∫

T

E L )(log10 dttp2

10 (3) 

Sound exposure levels represents the total acoustic energy delivered over the duration of an acoustic 

event.

Because the rms SPL and SEL are both computed from the integral of square pressure, these metrics 

are related numerically by a simple expression which depends only on the duration of the integration time 

interval, T: 

LL Ep −= log10 10 ( ) T (4) 

For continuous sound sources, a time interval of one second is conventionally used, and the rms SPL 

is equal to the SEL. For impulsive sources, an objective definition of pulse duration is needed when 

defining the rms SPL. As previously mentioned, the pulse duration is conventionally taken to be the 

interval during which 90 percent of the pulse energy is received at a location from the source.

2.2. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERWATER SOUND PROPAGATION

The propagation of sound in the ocean environment is a complex phenomenon to model. Multiple 

factors can affect the response of the medium to an acoustic wave and the propagation loss of acoustic 

energy. Some factors, such as geometric spreading, refraction, and absorption are well understood and 

their influence can be fairly readily calculated. Others, such as scattering, can be difficult to quantify 

because of their dependence on fine-scale features of the local environment; it is possible, however, to 

estimate and predict their effect using more empirical approaches. In the sections that follow, the 

principal factors affecting sound propagation in the ocean are briefly discussed in terms of their numerical 

estimation.

2.2.1. Geometric Spreading

In a homogeneous free space the wave front moving away from a point-like source has the form of a 

sphere, whose area (A) increases proportionally to the square of the distance ( 2 ∝ RA ). In turn, the 

received pressure is inversely proportional to the square root of the area ( − 2/1 ∝ Ap ). Therefore, in a free 

space the received pressure is inversely proportional to the distance from the source ( −1 ∝ Rp ). In terms 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-3 

of the sound level in decibel, this means that the transmission loss (TL) due to spherical spreading is 

equal to ⋅log20 10 R . 

Once the acoustic wave front reaches the seafloor, the spreading can no longer be considered 

spherical. In the water column, constrained by the sea surface and the sea bottom and at distances greater 

than the water depth, the acoustic wave front can be approximated more closely as a cylinder. The area of 

the side of a cylinder is proportional to the radius ( ∝ RA ), and the received pressure is thus inversely 

proportional to the square root of the distance ( − 2/1 ∝ Rp ). In decibel terms, the TL due to cylindrical 

spreading is therefore equal to 2/1

10 ⋅log20 R or ⋅log10 10 R . 

In the ocean, the TL due to geometric spreading of the acoustic wave front is generally calculated as 

spherical spreading for ranges from the source up to the water depth, and as cylindrical spreading beyond 

that distance.

2.2.2. Absorption

As sound waves propagate they interact at a molecular level with the constituents of sea water 

through a range of mechanisms, resulting in absorption of some sound energy (Thorp, 1965; Fisher and 

Simmons, 1977; Francois and Garrison, 1982a,b; Medwin, 2005). This occurs even in completely 

particulate-free waters in addition to energy losses from scattering by objects such as zooplankton and

suspended sediments. The absorption coefficient depends on factors such as temperature, salinity, and 

pressure and is different for acoustic waves of different frequencies.

The loss of sound energy by absorption is expressed as an attenuation coefficient in units of decibels 

per kilometer (dB/km). This coefficient is computed from empirical equations and increases generally 

with the square of frequency.

A representative curve of absorption loss as a function of frequency is shown in Figure D-1. The 

absorption of the acoustic wave energy is virtually nil in the low-frequency range (below 500 hertz [Hz]). 

It starts having a noticeable effect (at least 1 dB over ranges of 10–20 km) at frequencies above 1 kHz. 

The absorption loss increases markedly for higher frequencies; for a 100 kHz acoustic signal the 

absorption loss can exceed 30 dB over just 1 km. In the context of this study, the absorption loss is an 

important factor for the high-frequency electromechanical sources, whereas it plays virtually no role in 

the attenuation of sound from airgun sources.

Figure D-1. Sample Plot of Absorption Loss Versus Frequency. T° = 15 °C, Salinity = 33 ppt, z = 50 m. 

2.2.3. Refraction

Refraction is a change of direction in a propagating wave caused by spatial variations in sound speed 

within the medium. As a wave travels across a sound speed interface or gradient, portions of the wave 

front travel at different speeds, resulting in bending of the ray path (Medwin, 2005). The ray path bends 

away from a region with a higher sound speed towards a region with a lower sound speed. By affecting

travel paths within the medium, refraction can alter the angle of arrival of the sound at a receiver, as well

as the angle of incidence upon boundaries (e.g., the seafloor).
D-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

In order for refraction to occur, the medium must exhibit a spatial variation of the sound velocity over 

a scale comparable to the wavelength of the propagating wave. The major variables affecting the sound 

speed in sea water are the temperature, pressure, and salinity. The dependence is direct for all three 

variables: with an increase of the parameter the sound speed also increases.

Both temperature and pressure in the ocean have significant variation with depth, resulting in a spread 

of the sound velocity in the water column that can exceed a 60 meters per second (m/s) differential 

between maximum and minimum. As the physical parameters of the water can vary with time over a 

daily or seasonal cycle, so does the sound speed. The longer the period of the variation, the deeper the 

water layers that can be affected by it. In general, seasonal variations of the sound speed can be observed 

up to a 300 m depth. Water depths of more than 1,200 m exhibit a uniform sound speed gradient on a 

global scale.

Figure D-2 presents an example of a sound speed profile that can be observed in the ocean. Seasonal 

variations occur in the mixed layer, which, depending on ambient conditions, can have either a positive or 

negative vertical sound speed gradient or none at all. During cold months, when temperature in the upper 

mixed layer increases with depth, upward refracting conditions can be induced by the positive sound 

speed gradient in the top water layer. In such conditions sound tends to be channeled in the near-surface 

layer, referred to as a surface duct, as it is repeatedly reflected downward at the water surface and 

refracted upward by the positive sound speed gradient (Medwin, 2005). In the underlying thermocline 

region both temperature and sound speed decline, but below this the temperature is constant and sound 

speed begins to increase again with depth. The sound velocity minimum results in acoustic refraction 

from both below and above toward the depth at which the minimum occurs, forming a propagation 

channel. This allows sound to travel without interaction with the seafloor or the sea surface, significantly 

reducing TL. The deep sound channel is an important stable channel for long-range propagation, 

allowing low-frequency sound to travel thousands of kilometers (Medwin, 2005). In shallow continental 

shelf regions, the water depth is not deep enough to form a deep sound channel. Sound propagation in 

such regions is, in general, strongly affected by seasonal and daily temperature changes.

Figure D-2. Generic Sound Speed Profile with Some Common Features Defined. 

In deep ocean areas, features of the acoustic field known as convergence zones can be formed 

because of strong refractive conditions in the deep isothermal layer. Rays emitted from the source at 

different angles can be focused by refraction in certain volumes, increasing the overall received levels 

(RLs) compared to the surrounding areas. The increase can be as high as 20 dB; such convergence zones, 

however, are localized. An example of an acoustic field with convergence zones is shown in Figure D-3. 

In the figure, the convergence zone where the received acoustic level reaches a local maximum can be 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-5 

observed near the surface at 65 and 130 km from the source. In a cross-section view, it would have the

form of a ring with a width of several hundred meters and a height of several tens of meters. 

Figure D-3. An Example of an Acoustic Field from an Airgun Array Source with Convergence Zones.

2.2.4. Scattering

Scattering is a general term that covers several types of dispersive phenomena arising from the 

interaction of a propagating wave front with inhomogeneities in the medium (e.g., suspended particulates, 

bubbles, buried objects, and air-sea or sea-sediment interfaces). Sound energy arriving at an object may 

bend around it (diffraction) and/or be scattered back toward the source (backscattering) or other 

directions. For complex objects (e.g., a rough seafloor), the nature of these interactions can be quite 

complicated, as individual portions of a wave front are scattered differently (Medwin, 2005). However, if 

the acoustic wavelength is much greater than the scale of the non-uniformities in the medium (as is most 

often the case for low-frequency sounds) the effect of scattering on propagation loss is negligible. As the 

source spectral maximum of airgun arrays is below 200 Hz, sound propagation from such sources is 

virtually unaffected by scattering. In contrast, scattering loss effects are noticeable for electromechanical 

sources operating at high frequencies–several kHz and higher. 

2.2.5. Bathymetry

Water depth is very influential on sound propagation, particularly at frequencies below a few

kilohertz. In shallow water (less than ~100 m depth) acoustic propagation loss is dominated by reflection, 

transmission, and scattering of sound at the seabed. In deep water (greater than ~ 1 km depth), sound 

propagation is largely driven by refraction in the water column. At intermediate water column depths, 

sound propagation is influenced by a combination of these factors.

Low-frequency acoustic waves may not propagate through a shallow water column even in otherwise 

favorable conditions. If the wavelength of the sound is four times greater than the water depth, mode 

cut-off does occur (essentially the medium cannot support the oscillation) and the TL increases drastically 

compared to higher frequency waves (Clay and Medwin, 1977).

Also, as discussed in Section 2.2.1, the type of geometric spreading of the acoustic wave front is 

dependent on the water depth, which defines at which range from the source spherical spreading switches 

to cylindrical spreading. The TL in the spherical spreading regime is twice as large as in the cylindrical 

one, so the bathymetry can be very influential on propagation loss for this reason alone.

2.2.6. Source Depth

The radiated power of an underwater sound emitter depends on the position of the source below the 

sea surface. The propagation model used is designed to fully account for the source depth. The 
D-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

effectiveness of the source at a specific frequency, defined as the ratio of radiated power to the nominal 

power of the source placed in a free space, increases with depth and depends on the ratio of the source 

depth to the acoustic wavelength (zs λ ) (Brekhovskikh and Lysanov, 2003). The effectiveness increases 

approximately linearly from 0 at = 0 s z to 1.0 at λ = 41 s z and 1.2 at λ = 83 s z . For example, the 

effectiveness of a broadband source placed at 10 m depth with 1,500 m/s sound velocity will be 1.2 at 

56 Hz and only about 0.27 at 10 Hz.

2.2.7. Bottom Loss

Bottom loss is the amount of the original acoustic wave energy that is lost at the water-sediment 

interface through coupling of the sound into the sediment. Bottom loss, or TL, is the complement of the 

reflection coefficient, to be defined below.

An acoustic wave travelling in a medium can be reflected from an interface at which abrupt change in 

geoacoustic parameters is observed. Generally, at the interface only a portion of the total acoustic energy 

is reflected back, and the rest is transmitted past the interface. The reflection coefficient is the ratio of the 

amount of the reflected energy to the original energy of an incoming acoustic wave. 

The reflection coefficient depends on the discrepancy of the acoustic impedances (defined as the 

product of density and sound velocity) of the media on each side of the interface. The greater the change 

of acoustic properties between the media, and hence the mismatch of the impedances, the closer to unity 

the reflection coefficient is. This coefficient also depends on the incident angle of the acoustic wave; it 

has its minimal value when the incident angle is 90° (normal to the interface), and it can reach unity at 

sufficiently glancing angles for certain types of interface.

For the purpose of numerical modeling of sound propagation, the reflection coefficient or bottom loss 

can be calculated exactly given the properties of the media and the incident angle. In practice, however, 

there is often uncertainty associated with the estimation of these parameters. The spatial variation of 

sediment properties can also be significant, which further complicates the estimations. Certain rules of 

thumb apply to the approximate gauging of bottom loss: since the sound velocity and density of a 

sediment both increase with grain size, resulting in greater impedance mismatch relative to the water, the 

bottom loss for sediments with larger grain size is lower than for the sediments with smaller grain size. In 

general, a sandy bottom is more reflective and thus less acoustically absorptive than a clay bottom. 

2.3. ACOUSTIC IMPACT CRITERIA

2.3.1. M-Weighting

The potential for anthropogenic underwater noise to affect marine species depends on the species’ 

ability to hear the sounds produced (Ireland et al., 2007). Noises are less likely to disturb animals if they 

are at frequencies that the animal cannot hear well. An exception is when the sound pressure is so high 

that it can cause physical injury. For non-injurious sound levels, frequency weighting curves based on 

audiograms may be applied to weight the importance of sound levels at particular frequencies in a manner 

reflective of the receiver’s sensitivity to those frequencies (Nedwell and Turnpenny, 1998).

An NMFS-sponsored Noise Criteria Committee has proposed standard frequency weighting curves – 

referred to as M-weighting filters–for use with marine mammal species (Gentry et al., 2004). 

M-weighting filters are band-pass filter networks that are designed to reduce the importance of inaudible 

or less-audible frequencies for four marine mammal functional hearing groups:

1. Low-frequency cetaceans;

2. Mid-frequency cetaceans;

3. High-frequency cetaceans; and

4. Pinnipeds.

The amount of discount applied by M-weighting filters for less-audible frequencies is not as great as 

would be indicated by the corresponding audiograms for these groups of species. The rationale for 

applying a smaller discount than would be suggested by the audiogram is in part because of an observed 

characteristic of mammalian hearing that perceived equal loudness curves increasingly have less rapid 

roll-off outside the most sensitive hearing frequency range as sound levels increase. This is the reason 

that C-weighting curves for humans, used for assessing very loud sounds such as blasts, are flatter than 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-7 

A-weighting curves used for quiet to mid-level sounds. Additionally, out-of-band frequencies, though 

less audible, can still cause physical injury if pressure levels are very high. The M-weighting filters, 

therefore, are primarily intended to be applied at high sound levels where effects such as temporary or 

permanent hearing threshold shifts may occur. The use of M-weighting should be considered 

precautionary (in the sense of overestimating the potential for an effect) when applied to lower level 

effects such as onset of behavioral response. Figure D-4 shows the decibel frequency weighting of the 

four standard underwater M-weighting filters.

Figure D-4. Standard M-Weighting Curves for Low-, Mid-, and High-Frequency Cetaceans and Pinnipeds 

Underwater. 

The M-weighting filters have unity gain (0 dB) through the pass band, and their high- and 

low-frequency roll offs are approximately –12 dB per octave. The amplitude response in the frequency 

domain of the M-weighting filters is defined by:

dB11log20)( 2

2

2

2

10 































+ 













 −= +

hi

lo

f

f

f

f fG (5) 

The roll off and pass band of these filters are defined by the parameters flo and fhi. The parameter 

values of the standard M-weighting curves are presented in Table D-1. 

The amplitude response of the M-weighting filter is calculated separately for each modeled frequency 

and added to the received level at that specific frequency to obtain the M-weighted received level:

RL f RL fGf )()()( MW += (6) 

Since the amplitude response of the M-weighting filter calculated using Equation (5) is a negative 

value, the M-weighted received level is lower than the unweighted one.
D-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table D-1 

Low-Frequency (flo) and High-Frequency (fhi) Cutoff Parameters for Standard Marine Mammal 

M-Weighting Curves. Source: Southall et al. (2007). 

M-Weighting Filter flo (Hz) fhi (Hz)

Low-frequency cetaceans 7 22,000

Mid-frequency cetaceans 150 160,000

High-frequency cetaceans 200 180,000

Pinnipeds underwater 75 75,000

2.3.2. Consideration of the Minimum Integration Time

The numerical models used for estimating the received levels assume that a virtual receiver does not 

have a limit on the minimum integration time and therefore the integration time used for the calculation of 

rms SPL (see Equation [2]) can be as small as the actual length of the pulse emitted by the source. When 

assessing the impact of the acoustic source on marine mammals, it is important to take the specific 

properties of the marine mammal hearing apparatus into consideration.

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. Richardson et al. (1995) 

(Chapter 8.2.4.) summarize a number of studies that compare the effects of short signals (less than 

100 ms) with the effect of prolonged signals on marine mammals. It was observed that the thresholds for 

pulses of 0.2 ms duration were ~ 10–20 dB poorer (i.e., higher). For even shorter pulses, the thresholds 

can increase by as much as 40 dB. 

It can be concluded that the increase in the thresholds with decreasing the signal duration exists 

because of minimum integration time limitation caused by the specifics of the hearing apparatus of some 

marine mammals. As such, when calculating the apparent received levels with Equation (2), the 

minimum integration time should be used for the time interval value T instead of the actual pulse 

duration. The adjustment for the minimum integration time can be calculated by the following formula:















 =−=∆

MIT

pulse

RL app act T

T

RLRL 10 log10 , (7) 

where RLapp is the apparent received level that takes into consideration the minimum integration time, 

RLact is the actual received level calculated using actual pulse duration, Tpulse is the pulse length, and TMIT

is the minimum integration time. The adjustment is a negative value and should be used only in case 

Tpulse < TMIT.

2.3.3. National Marine Fisheries Service Criteria

The NMFS considers two levels of harassment to the marine mammals: Level A (injury) and Level B 

(disturbance). According to the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 

1972, Level A Harassment is defined as “any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” Level B Harassment is defined as “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 such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered.” 

The NMFS (2005) specified that Level A Harassment for pulsed and continuous sources occurs when 

an animal is exposed to sound pressure levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa rms (for cetaceans) or 

190 dB re 1 μPa rms (for pinnipeds). The criterion of 160 dB re 1 μPa rms SPL is considered as Level B 

Harassment for both mammal groups for pulsed and continuous sources. 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-9 

The 180–160 dB criteria were thought to be well understood by the public and easily calculated from 

standard propagation models (Federal Register, 2005). Being expressed in rms units, the criteria take into 

account not only the energy of the pulse, but also the length of the pulse (see Equation [1]). The exposure 

levels need to be calculated using the unweighted acoustic signal, i.e., they do not take into account 

different hearing ability of the animals at different frequencies. The disadvantage of such a criterion is 

that it does not take into account certain important attributes of the exposure such as duration, frequency, 

or repetition rate (Federal Register, 2005). 

2.3.4. Southall Criteria

In order to address the shortcomings of the 180–160 dB rms SPL criteria, the Noise Criteria Group 

was established, which was sponsored by NMFS. The goal of the Noise Criteria Group was to develop 

updated noise exposure criteria based on solid scientific evidence. In 2007 the findings of the Group, as

led by Brandon Southall, were published (Southall et al., 2007). In the publication new noise impact 

criteria were introduced, now commonly referred to as ‘Southall criteria.’ 

The Southall criteria (Table D-2) are based on numerous data collected in the course of controlled 

and uncontrolled experiments during which different species were exposed to various levels of sound. 

The observations were made for the occurrence of permanent threshold shift (PTS) or temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) in animals’ hearing. As a result, the criteria for injury were suggested. In terms of 

behavioral impacts, Southall et al. (2007) did not propose criteria for sources other than a single impulse 

(e.g., explosion) for the reasons of context-dependence and other complexities in the nature of behavioral 

responses and available literature. 

Table D-2 

Southall Criteria for Injury. Source: Southall et al. (2007). 

Marine Mammal Group Injury

Peak Pressure Sound Exposure Level

Low-frequency cetaceans 230 dB re 1 μPa (flat) 198 dB re 1 μPa2·s (Mlf)

Mid-frequency cetaceans 230 dB re 1 μPa (flat) 198 dB re 1 μPa2·s (Mmf)

High-frequency cetaceans 230 dB re 1 μPa (flat) 198 dB re 1 μPa2·s (Mhf)

Pinnipeds underwater 218 dB re 1 μPa (flat) 186 dB re 1 μPa2·s (Mpw)

The injury criteria are based both on peak pressure of the acoustic wave, expressed in dB re 1 μPa, 

and the total SEL, expressed in dB re 1 μPa2

·s. In order to comply with the criteria, the characteristics of 

the acoustic wave should not exceed either or both.

Two different levels were established for cetaceans and pinnipeds, with the levels for pinnipeds being 

lower. Prior to calculation of the sound exposure level appropriate M-weighting filter (see Section 2.3.1) 

would be applied to the acoustic signal to take into account hearing specifics of different mammal groups. 

During the calculations of the sound exposure level the length of the pulse is not considered, only the total 

energy released during the pulse event (see Equation [3]).

3. ACOUSTIC SOURCES

The acoustic sources covered in the programmatic modeling study can be subdivided into two major 

groups: 

• airgun sources; and

• electromechanical sources. 

An airgun source can consist of a single device, but most often it is made up of an array of airguns. It 

is considered a low-frequency source since most of its acoustic energy is radiated at frequencies below 

200 Hz. Airgun arrays are broadband emitters, with source spectra spanning a number of third-octave 

bands. A single airgun is an omnidirectional source, i.e. the amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from 

the source is uniform in all directions. An airgun array, on the other hand, does exhibit directionality 
D-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

because of the varying delays between signals from the spatially separated airguns in different directions. 

The main specification of an airgun, which defines its broadband SL and spectral content, is the volume 

of the air chamber. 

Electromechanical sources are considered mid- or high-frequency emitters. They usually have one or 

two (sometimes three) main operating frequencies, which fall in the range from 2-900 kHz. The acoustic 

energy emitted outside the main operating frequency band in most of these devices is negligible; they can 

therefore usually be considered narrow band sources. High-frequency electromechanical sources are 

highly directive with beam widths as narrow as a few degrees. Electromechanical sources include 

side-scan sonars, subbottom profilers, single and multibeam depth sounders, boomers, etc.

The list of acoustic sources addressed in this study is presented in Table D-3. The operating 

frequencies and operational application are also provided.

Table D-3 

List of Acoustic Source Types Modeled in This Study Indicating Representative Equipment Types, 

Operating Frequencies, and Survey Application

Type of Acoustic Source Operating 

Frequencies

Modeled at Sites

Oil and Gas 

Exploration

Renewable 

Energy Marine Minerals

Large airgun array (5,400 in3) 10-2,000 Hz ● -- --

Small airgun array (90 in3) 10-2,000 Hz ● -- --

Boomer 200-16,000 Hz ● ● ●

Side-scan sonar 100, 400 kHz ● ● ●

Chirp subbottom profiler 3.5, 12,200 kHz ● ● ●

Multibeam depth sounder 240 kHz ● ● ●

A typical hydrographic vessel can be equipped with other survey or auxiliary acoustic sources that 

were not addressed in this study. Some examples are sparkers and single beam echosounders (also 

referred to as fathometers). These sources were not considered for modeling, as they either produce an 

acoustic field similar to another modeled source or the sound field levels are negligible compared to other 

equipment. The former can be applied to the sparker, as it has acoustic characteristics similar to the 

boomer and is also used to collect shallow penetration data. The latter can be applied to the single beam 

echosounder. A typical single beam echosounder has a narrow beam width, less than 20° (Teledyne 

Odom Hydrographic, Inc., 2011) directed straight down and a low source level 195-205 dB re 1 μPa at 

1 m. The lateral extension of the acoustic field from a single beam echosounder would be superceded by 

the one from other sources with higher source levels and beam directivity closer to the horizontal plane. 

The description and specifications for a typical sparker source are provided in the report; however, it was 

not considered for modeling, as the modeling results for the boomer can be used to estimate the acoustic 

field from a sparker and both are used to collect similar shallow penetration data. 

3.1. AIRGUN SOURCES

3.1.1. Seismic Survey Overview

Marine seismic surveys using airgun sources are capable of producing high-resolution, 3D images of 

geological stratification down to several kilometers depth, and have thus become an essential tool for 

geophysicists studying the Earth’s crust. Seismic airgun surveys can be divided into two types, 2D and 

3D, according to the type of data that they acquire. Two-dimensional surveys are so called because they 

only provide a 2D cross-sectional image of the Earth’s structure; they are characterized operationally by 

large spacing between survey lines, on the order of a kilometer or more. Three-dimensional surveys, on 

the other hand, rely on very dense line spacing, of the order of a few hundred meters or less, to provide a 

3D volumetric image of the underlying geological structures.

The total volume of the airgun array source and the volume of individual airguns for a typical 2D

survey are usually larger than for a typical 3D seismic survey. Two-dimensional surveys aim at deeper 

imaging of the geological structures at the expense of resolution.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-11

A typical seismic survey, either 2D or 3D, is operated from a single survey ship that tows both the 

seismic source and the receiver apparatus. Up to tens of individual airguns in the source array are fired 

simultaneously in order to project a high-amplitude seismo-acoustic pulse into the ocean bottom. The 

receiver equipment usually consists of one or more streamers, often several kilometers in length, that 

contain hundreds of sensitive hydrophones for detecting echoes of the seismic pulse reflected from 

subbottom features. In some cases the receiving equipment consists of cabled seismometers placed on the 

ocean floor. For other seismic surveys, both streamers and ocean-bottom seismometers are used.

The majority of the underwater sound generated by a seismic survey is attributable to the airgun 

array, the survey vessel itself contributing very little in relative terms to the overall sound field. Airgun 

arrays are broadband acoustic sources that project energy over a wide range of frequencies, from under 

10 Hz to over 5 kHz. Most of the energy, however, is concentrated in the frequency range below 200 Hz. 

The constituent airguns in the array are geometrically arranged so as to project the maximum amount of 

seismic energy vertically into the seafloor. A significant portion of the sound energy from the array is, 

nonetheless, emitted at off-vertical angles and propagated into the surrounding environment. The 

frequency spectrum of the sound propagating near-horizontally can differ markedly from that of the sound 

directed downward. There can also be substantial differences in the intensity and frequency spectrum of 

sound projected in different horizontal directions.

3.1.2. Airgun Operating Principles

An airgun is a pneumatic sound source that creates predominantly low-frequency acoustic impulses 

by generating bubbles of compressed air in water. The rapid release of highly-compressed air (typically 

at pressures of ~2,000 psi) from the airgun chamber creates an oscillating air bubble in the water. The 

expansion and oscillation of this air bubble generates a strongly-peaked, high-amplitude acoustic impulse 

that is useful for seismic profiling. The main features of the pressure signal generated by an airgun, as 

shown in Figure D-5, are the strong initial peak and the subsequent bubble pulses. The amplitude of the 

initial peak depends primarily on the firing pressure and chamber volume of the airgun, whereas the 

period and amplitude of the bubble pulse depend on the chamber volume and firing depth.

Figure D-5. Overpressure Signature for a Single Airgun, Showing the Primary Peak and the Bubble Pulse.

As mentioned earlier, airguns are designed to generate most of the acoustic energy at frequencies less 

than ~200 Hz, which are most useful for seismic penetration beneath surficial seabed sediment layers. 

Because of their impulsive nature, airgun sources inevitably generate sound energy above 200 Hz, 

although the energy output at those frequencies is substantially less than at low frequencies. In general, 

the predominant frequency output of an airgun is inversely dependent on its volume.
D-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Zero-to-peak (0-p) SLs for individual airguns range typically between 220 and 235 dB re 1μPa at 1m 

(~1–6 bar· m), with larger airguns generating higher peak pressures than smaller ones. The peak pressure 

of an airgun pulse, however, only increases with the cubic root of the chamber volume. Furthermore, the 

amplitude of the subsequent bubble pulses also increases with the volume of the airgun and constitutes an 

undesirable feature of the airgun signal as it smears subbottom reflections. In order to increase the pulse 

amplitude (to “see” deeper into the earth), geophysicists generally combine multiple airguns together into 

arrays. Airgun arrays provide several advantages over single airguns for deep geophysical surveying:

• the far-field peak pressure of an airgun array in the vertical direction increases nearly 

linearly with the number of airguns; 

• the geometric lay-out of airgun arrays can be optimized to project maximum peak 

levels toward the seabed (i.e., directly downward), whereas single airguns produce 

nearly omnidirectional sound; and

• by using airguns of several different volumes, airgun arrays can be “tuned” to 

increase the amplitude of the primary peak and simultaneously decrease the relative 

amplitude of the subsequent bubble pulses.

3.1.3. Airgun Array Source Levels

The far-field pressure generated by a seismic airgun array is substantially greater than that of an 

individual airgun, but is also strongly angle-dependent relative to the array axis. An array of thirty guns, 

for example, can have a zero-to-peak SL of 255 dB re 1 μPa at 1m (~56 bar· m) in the vertical direction. 

This apparently high value for the SL can lead to erroneous conclusions about the impact on the marine 

environment for the following reasons:

• peak SLs for seismic survey sources are usually quoted for the sound propagating 

vertically downward; because of the directional dependence of the radiated sound 

field, however, SLs for the sound propagating off to the sides of the array are 

generally lower; and

• far field SLs do not apply in the near field of the array because an airgun array is a 

distributed source where the sound from the individual airguns does not add 

coherently; sound levels in the near field are, in fact, lower than would be expected 

from far-field estimates.

The acoustic SL of a seismic airgun array varies considerably in both the horizontal and vertical 

directions because of the complex interaction between the signals from the component airguns. One must 

account for this variability in order to correctly predict the sound field generated by an airgun array. If 

the source signatures and relative positions (in 3D) of the individual airguns are known, then it is possible 

to accurately compute the SL of an array in any direction by summing the contributions of the array 

elements with the appropriate time delays, according to their relative positions. This is the basis for the 

airgun array source model discussed in the next section.

3.1.4. Airgun Array Source Model

The current study makes use of a full-waveform AASM, developed by JASCO (MacGillivray, 2006), 

to compute the SL and directionality of the airgun array. The airgun model is based on the physics of the 

oscillation and radiation of airgun bubbles, as described by Ziolkowski (1970). The model solves in 

parallel, using a numerical integration scheme, a set of ordinary differential equations that define the 

airgun bubble oscillations.

In addition to the basic bubble physics, the source model also accounts for non-linear pressure 

interactions between airguns, port throttling, bubble damping, and generator-injector (GI) gun behavior, 

as described by such authors as Dragoset (1984), Laws et al. (1990), and Landro (1992). The source 

model includes four empirical parameters that are tuned so that the model output matches observed airgun 

behavior. These parameters were fitted to a large library of real airgun data using a “simulated annealing” 

global optimization algorithm. The airgun data were obtained from a systematic study (Racca and 

Scrimger, 1986) that measured the signatures of Bolt 600/B guns ranging in volume from 

5-185 cubic inches (in3

). 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-13

The airgun array source model requires several inputs, including the array layout, volumes, towing 

depths, and firing pressure. The output of the source model is a set of “notional” signatures for the array 

elements; these are the pressure waveforms of the individual airguns, compensated for the interaction 

with other airguns in the array, at a standard reference distance of 1 m.

After the source model is executed, the resulting notional signatures are summed together with the 

appropriate phase delays to obtain the far-field source signature of the array. The far-field array 

signature, in turn, is filtered into third-octave pass bands to compute the SL of the array as a function of 

frequency band, fc, and propagation azimuth, θ: SL = SL(fc, θ).

The interaction between the signals from individual airguns creates a directionality pattern in the 

overall acoustic emission from the array. This directionality is particularly prominent at frequencies from 

several tens to several hundred Hz; at lower frequencies the array appears omnidirectional, whereas at 

higher frequencies the pattern of lobes becomes too finely spaced to resolve. 

The propagation model, discussed in Section 4.1, calculates TL from an equivalent point-like 

acoustic source to receiver locations at various distances, depths, and bearings. As previously mentioned, 

however, the point-source assumption is not valid in the near field, where the output from the distinct 

array elements does not add coherently. The maximum extent of the near field of an array is given by the 

expression

4λ

2 L Rnf < (8) 

Here, λ is the frequency dependent sound wavelength and L is the longest dimension of the array 

(Lurton, 2002, §5.2.4). For example, along the diagonal of the 3-string (18-airgun) array discussed 

below, L ≈ 22 m and so the maximum near field range is 80 m at 1 kHz (Rnf is less for lower frequencies). 

Beyond these ranges it is assumed that an array radiates like a directional point source and can be treated 

as such for the purpose of propagation modeling.

3.1.5. Large Airgun Array

A 5,400 in3 airgun array was taken as a representative example of a large seismic source for oil and 

gas exploration. The configuration of the array and air gun volumes were suggested in the “MAI 

Discussion Points about Modeling Assumptions” document.

The array has dimensions of 16 × 15 m and consists of 18 air guns placed in three identical strings of 

six air guns each (Figure D-6). The volume of individual air guns ranges from 105-660 in3

. Firing 

pressure for all elements is 2,000 psi. The depth below the sea surface for the array was set at 6.5 m.

The array was modeled using the JASCO airgun array source model to compute notional source 

signatures and from them obtain third-octave band SLs as a function of azimuth angle. The resulting 

broadside and endfire (relative to the trackline) overpressure signatures and corresponding power 

spectrum levels are shown in Figure D-7. Horizontal third-octave band directionality plots are shown in 

Figure D-8. Specific characteristics of the 5,400 in3 airgun array pressure signature are provided in

Table D-4. 
D-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure D-6. Layout of the 5,400 in3 Seismic Array. Symbol Sizes and Labels Indicate the Volume of the Airguns 

in Cubic Inches.

Figure D-7. Predicted Overpressure Signature (left) and Power Spectrum (right) for the 5,400 in3 Airgun Array in 

the Broadside and Endfire Directions. Surface Ghosts (Effects of the Pulse Reflection at the Water 

Surface) Are Not Included in These Signatures.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-15

Figure D-8. Azimuthal Directivity Pattern of SLs for the 5,400 in3 Array at 6.5 m Depth, Shown in Third-Octave 

Bands by Center Frequency. Arrows Indicate the Front of the Array and the Solid Black Curves 

Indicate the Source Levels in dB re 1 μPa2

·s as a Function of Angle in the Horizontal Plane, 

Referenced to a Fixed Radial dB Level Scale (Dashed Circles).

Table D-4 

The 5,400 in3

 Airgun Array Pressure Characteristics from the AASM Model at 6.5 m Depth. 

Surface Ghost Effects Are Excluded

Metric Forward Endfire Broadside

Zero-Peak Pressure (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 247.7 246.7

90% rms level (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 233.3 232.5

90% rms duration (ms) 500 513

SEL 10–2,000 Hz (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 224.7 224.7

SEL 0–1,000 Hz (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 230.7 230.0

SEL 1,000–2,000 Hz (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 181.7 181.8
D-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The directivity of the airgun arrays source is markedly dependent on the array configuration. The 

maximum pressure levels in each frequency band (over all directions), on the other hand, are less strongly 

dependent on the configurations and can be considered as a function of the total volume of the array. In 

view of the generalized nature of this study it was decided to remove the directivity from the source 

modeling by calculating the maximum level over all azimuths in each third-octave band and using those 

band levels for all directions. The resulting SLs for the 5,400 in3 airgun are shown in Figure D-9. 

Figure D-9. Maximum Directional SLs in Each Third-Octave Band for the 5,400 in3 Airgun Array.

3.1.6. Small Airgun Array

A 90 in3, two airgun array was taken as representative configuration for the purpose of modeling a 

small seismic source typically used for high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys of oil and gas 

exploration and development sites. The two guns were assumed to be 45 in3 each, spaced 1 m from each 

other and deployed at a depth of 6.5 m. The source modeling considerations for the 90 in3 airgun array 

were similar to the ones for the large airgun array (see Section 3.1.5), including the removal of the 

directivity from the source function by assuming that the maximum directional acoustic level in each 

third-octave band is emitted in all directions.

Specific characteristics of the 90 in3 airgun array pressure signature are provided in Table D-5. The 

observed maximum levels in third-octave bands for the 90 in.

3 airgun array are shown in Figure D-10. 

Table D-5 

The 90 in3

 Airgun Array Pressure Characteristics from the AASM Model at 6.5 m Depth. 

Surface Ghost Effects Are Excluded

Metric Forward Endfire Broadside

Zero-peak Pressure (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 232.0 231.2

90% rms level (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 215.9 215.8

90% rms duration (ms) 247 248

SEL 10–2,000 Hz (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 210.2 210.1

SEL 0–1,000 Hz (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 210.3 210.2

SEL 1,000–2,000 Hz (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 172.6 170.1
Acoustic Modeling Report D-17

Figure D-10. Maximum Directional SLs in Each Third-Octave Band for the 90 in3 Airgun Array.

3.2. ELECTROMECHANICAL SOURCES

Mid- and high-frequency underwater acoustic sources for geophysical measurements create an 

oscillatory overpressure through rapid vibration of a surface, using either electromagnetic forces or the 

piezoelectric effect of some materials. A vibratory source based on the piezoelectric effect is commonly 

referred to as a transducer, and may be capable of receiving as well as emitting functionality. 

The transducers are usually designed to excite an acoustic wave of a specific frequency, often in a 

highly directive beam. The directional capability increases with increasing operating frequency. The 

main parameter characterizing the directivity is the beam width, defined as the angle subtended by 

diametrically opposite “half power” (-3 dB) points of the main lobe. For different transducers at a single 

operating frequency the beam width can vary from 180° (almost omnidirectional) to only a few degrees.

Transducers are usually produced with either circular or rectangular active surfaces. For circular 

transducers the beam width in the horizontal plane (assuming a downward pointing main beam) is equal 

in all directions. Rectangular transducers produce more complex beam patterns with variable beam width 

in the horizontal plane; two beam width values are usually specified for orthogonal axes.

3.2.1. Beam Pattern Calculation

The acoustic radiation pattern, or beam pattern, of a transducer is the relative measure of acoustic 

transmitting or receiving power as a function of spatial angle. Directionality is generally measured in 

decibels relative to the maximum radiation level along the central (acoustic) axis perpendicular to the 

transducer surface. The pattern is defined largely by the operating frequency of the device and the size 

and shape of the transducer. 

Beam patterns generally consist of a main lobe extending along the central axis of the transducer, and 

multiple secondary lobes separated by nulls. The width of the main lobe depends on the size of the active 

surface relative to the sound wavelength in the medium, with larger transducers producing narrower 

beams. Figure D-11 presents a 3D visualization of a typical beam pattern for a circular transducer. 
D-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure D-11. Typical 3D Beam Pattern for a Circular Transducer. Source: Massa (1999).

The beam width is a key characteristic of transducers. It is generally defined as the total angular 

range where the sound pressure level of the main beam is within 3 dB of the on-axis peak power (Massa, 

1999). The true beam pattern of a transducer can only be obtained by in situ measurement of the emitted 

energy around the device, as shown in the example of Figure D-12. Such data, however, are not always 

readily available, and for modeling purposes it is often sufficient to estimate the beam pattern based on 

transducer theory.

Figure D-12. 2D Polar Representation of a Beam Pattern Obtained by In Situ Measurement (Vertical Slice) of a 

Transducer Used by Kongsberg. These Sample Measurements Were Obtained through Personal 

Communications with the Manufacturer. 

3.2.2. Beam Pattern of a Circular Transducer

The beam of an ideal circular transducer is symmetric about the main axis; the radiated level depends 

only on the depression angle (off main axis angle). In this study, beam directivities were calculated from 

the standard formula for the beam pattern of a circular transducer (Kinsler et al., 1950; ITC, 1993). The 

directivity function of a conical beam, relative to the on-axis pressure amplitude, is given by: 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-19

( )

D sin( )

DJ sin( ) )(R φπφπ⋅ =φ

λ

1 λ 2

 and bw

D

θ λ

60 =

,

(9) 

where J1 is the Bessel function of the first order, Dλ is the transducer dimension (e.g., diameter) in 

wavelengths of sound in the water, θbw is the beam width in degrees, and φ is the beam angle from the 

transducer axis. The beam pattern of a circular transducer can be calculated from the transducer’s 

specified beam width or from the diameter of the active surface and the operating frequency. The 

calculated beam pattern for a circular transducer with a beam width of 20° is shown in Figure D-13. The 

gray scale represents the SL (in dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) and the declination angle is relative to a central vector 

(0°, 0°) pointing directly downward at the seafloor.

Figure D-13. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Circular Transducer with a Beam Width of 20°. Beam Power Function 

Shown Relative to the On-axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.

Although some acoustic energy is emitted at the back of the transducer, the theory only accounts for 

the beam power in the front half space (φ <90°) and assumes no energy directed into the back half space. 

The relative power at these rearward angles is significantly lower, generally by more than 30 dB, and 

consequently the emission in the back half space can be estimated by applying a simple decay rate, in dB 

per angular degree, which reduces the beam power at φ = 90° to a value 30 dB lower than at φ = 0°. 

This simple estimate of the beam power in the back half space allows a conservative estimate of the total 

beam power.

3.2.3. Beam Pattern of a Rectangular Transducer

Rectangular transducer beam directivities were calculated from the standard formula for the beam 

pattern of a rectangular acoustic array (Kinsler et al., 1950; International Transducer Corporation, 1993). 

This expression is the product of the toroidal beam patterns of two line arrays, where the directional 

characteristics in the along- and across-track directions are computed from the respective beam widths. 

The directivity function of a toroidal beam, relative to the on-axis pressure amplitude, is given by: 

( )

L sin( )

sin L sin( ) )(R φπφπ =φ

λ

λ

 and bw

L

θ λ

50 =

,

(10) 

where Lλ is the transducer dimension in wavelengths, θ bw is the beam width in degrees, and φ is the 

angle from the transducer axis. The beam pattern of a transducer can be calculated using either the 

specified beam width in each plane or the dimensions of the active surface and the operating frequency of 

the transducer. The calculated beam pattern for a rectangular transducer with along- and across-track 

beam widths of 4° and 10°, respectively, is shown in Figure D-14. 
D-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure D-14. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Rectangular Transducer With a 4°×10° Beam Width. Beam Power 

Function Shown Relative to the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.

3.2.4. Beam Pattern of a Multibeam System

High-frequency systems often have two or more transducers, as is the case for side-scan sonars and 

swath bathymetry sonars. Typical side-scan sonar uses two transducers, with the central axes directed 

perpendicular to the track of the ship and at some depression angle to the horizontal plane. By contrast, 

multibeam bathymetry survey systems can have upwards of 100 transducers. Such systems generally 

utilize rectangular transducers and have a narrow beam width in the horizontal plane (0.2°–3°) and a 

wider beam width in the vertical plane.

For multibeam systems, the beam patterns of individual transducers are calculated separately then 

combined into the overall pattern of the system based on the engagement type of the beams, which can be 

simultaneous or successive. If the beams are engaged successively, the SL of the system along a specific 

direction is assumed to be equal to the maximum SL realized from each of the individual transducers, 

whereas if the beams are engaged simultaneously, the beam pattern of the system is simply the sum of all 

beam patterns. Figure D-15 presents the predicted beam pattern for two rectangular transducers engaged 

simultaneously. In this example, the individual transducers have along- and across-track beam widths of 

1.5° and 50°, respectively.

Figure D-15. Calculated Beam Pattern for Two Rectangular Transducers Engaged Simultaneously, with Individual 

Beam Widths of 1.5°×50°, and a Declination Angle of 25°. Beam Power Function Shown Relative to 

the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-21

3.2.5. Boomer

3.2.5.1. Boomer Source Description

Boomers consist of a circular piston moved by electromagnetic force; the emitter plate of a surface 

towed boomer system is shown in Figure D-16. The high voltage energy that excites the boomer plate is 

stored in a capacitor bank; operating voltages range from 1-6 kilovolts (kV), and the energy discharged 

for a single shot can vary from 50 joules (J) to 2 kilojoules (kJ). The typical pulse width is in order of 

tenths of a millisecond (Figure D-17). The narrow pulse allows the boomer to achieve high rms SPL 

(210–220 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) with relatively low total energy input. The peak pressure level for a 

boomer with the input energy less than 400 J do not exceed 220 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Simpkin, 2005).

Figure D-16. A Surface Towed Boomer Source. Source: Simpkin (2005).

Figure D-17. Source Pulse of the AA201 Boomer at 100 J Energy Output. Source: Applied Acoustic Engineering 

Ltd. (2011). 
D-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The amount of energy discharged is controlled by increasing either the voltage or the size of the 

capacitor. Increasing the voltage, for a given capacitance, shortens the pulse duration and thus shifts the 

spectral band of generated acoustic energy toward higher frequencies. Increasing the capacitance for a 

given voltage increases the pulse length and thus generates lower frequencies. In both cases the peak 

amplitude and broadband SL increase. By controlling the parameters of the applied electrical impulse, 

frequencies as high as 20 kHz can be generated. The power spectrum of the acoustic wave generated by a 

boomer source peaks at 1.5–5 kHz (Simpkin, 2005). Boomer systems can penetrate as deep as 200 m in 

soft sediments, with a resolution as small as 75 centimeters (cm) (Simpkin, 2005). Boomer sources show 

some directionality, which increases with the acoustic frequency; at frequencies below 1 kHz they can 

usually be considered omnidirectional.

3.2.5.2. Acoustic Characteristics

The emitting element of the boomer source is a boomer plate with the diameter of about 30–40 cm

mounted on a catamaran-like sled as shown in Figure D-18 (Applied Acoustic Engineering Ltd., 2011). 

Because the boomer source is a circular piston surrounded by a rigid baffle, it cannot be considered a 

point-like source (Verbeek and McGee, 1995). The boomer is a strongly directive source for frequencies 

at which the boomer dimension is not small compared to the wavelength; by this criterion the boomer 

becomes directional at frequencies above 1 kHz. In order to produce estimates of the sound field for a 

generic boomer source, the specifications of the Applied Acoustics AA201 boomer were taken to 

represent a standard system. 

Figure D-18. An Example of a Representative Boomer Plate System. Source: Applied Acoustic Engineering Ltd. 

(2011).

The manufacturer’s product fact-sheet specifies an rms SPL of 212 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m at 200 J 

(maximum input energy) with a pulse duration less than 0.18 ms and a typical ping rate of 2–3 Hz

(Table D-6). The peak source level was estimated based on the rms SPL source level using the relation 

between the peak and rms levels for a sine wave. The source level expressed in SEL units 

(dB re 1 μPa2

·s) was estimated based on the rms SPL and the pulse length using Equation (4). Please 

refer to Attachment A for recent findings resulting from a sound source verification study on an AP3000 

boomer system. 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-23

Table D-6 

Representative Boomer Specifications. The Source Levels Are Provided for 200 J Power Input

Operational Frequency Range Broad Band: 200 Hz – 16 kHz

Beam Widths (degrees) omnidirectional – 8°

Maximum Energy Input (per shot) 300 J

Maximum Power Input 600 W

Pulse Length (at 200 J) 180 μs

rms SPL (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 212

Peak Level (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 215

SEL (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 174.6

The power spectrum of the boomer signal and the beam width at different frequencies was estimated 

based on Simpkin’s (2005) study of the Huntec ’70 Deep Tow Boomer, a typical boomer plate of 

comparable dimensions. The estimated values are presented in Table D-7. 

Table D-7 

Estimated Source Levels (rms SPL) and Beam Width from the Representative Boomer Distributed into 

Twenty 1/3-Octave Bands. Broad Band Source Level Is 212 dB 1 μPa at 1 m

Third-Octave Band Center 

Frequency (Hz)

rms SPL

(dB re 1 μPa at 1 m)

SEL

(dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) Beam Width

200 196.0 158.6 omnidirectional

250 196.4 159.0 omnidirectional

315 197.1 159.7 omnidirectional

400 197.7 160.3 omnidirectional

500 198.5 161.1 omnidirectional

630 199.4 162.0 omnidirectional

800 200.0 162.6 omnidirectional

1,000 200.8 163.4 omnidirectional

1,250 201.5 164.1 105°

1,600 201.6 164.2 78°

2,000 201.9 164.5 60°

2,500 201.4 164.0 47°

3,150 200.8 163.4 37°

4,000 200.1 162.7 29°

5,000 198.9 161.5 23°

6,400 197.8 160.4 18°

8,000 196.1 158.7 14°

10,000 192.8 155.4 11°

12,800 186.8 149.4 9°

16,000 176.8 139.4 8°
D-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

The beam pattern calculations were then based on the standard formula for the beam pattern of a 

circular array (Equation [2]), with a decay rate in the back half space of 0.30 dB per degree from the 

horizontal plane, in order to reduce the back SL to -30 dB or less. Figures 19 and 20 show the flat image 

and vertical slice for the calculated beam pattern at (a) 1.25 and (b) 16.0 kHz.

Figure D-19. Calculated Beam Pattern for the Representative Boomer at (a) 1.25 and (b) 16.0 kHz. Beam Power 

Function Shown Relative to the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.

Figure D-20. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for the Representative Boomer at (a) 1.25 and (b) 16.0 kHz; 

Across-Track Direction.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-25

The boomer source can be treated as an omnidirectional source for the frequencies of 1,000 Hz and 

lower. For frequencies higher than 1,000 Hz the directionality of the boomer was taken into account. 

The acoustic field projected by the boomer source was modeled using two propagation models: for 

frequencies of 1,000 Hz and below were modeled using MONM-RAM, while frequencies above 1,000 Hz 

were modeled using MONM-BELLHOP.

3.2.6. Side-Scan Sonar

The representative side-scan sonar is assumed to be a dual-frequency side-scan sonar with two 

simultaneously-engaged transducers, each producing a full spectrum chirp signal (Figure D-21). The 

sonar can be operated in dual-frequency bands with central frequencies of 100/400 kHz. In order to 

produce estimates of the sound field for a generic side-scan sonar source, the specifications of the 

EdgeTech 4200-MP side-scan sonar were taken to represent a standard system. (EdgeTech, 2011). 

Figure D-21. An Example of a Representative Side-Scan Sonar System. Source: EdgeTech (2011).

The sonar is installed inside a streamlined towfish that can be towed behind a vessel at different 

depths. The central axes of the two transducers are oriented perpendicular to the towing line in the 

horizontal plane, i.e., at 90° and 270° relative to the ship’s course. In the vertical plane, the central axes 

are tilted downward at 20° to the horizontal plane. The vertical beam width (across-track) is 50° for both 

frequencies. The horizontal beam width (along-track) varies between 0.4° and 1.26°, depending on the 

frequency and the operating mode. The relevant modeling parameters for the representative side-scan 

sonar system are presented in Table D-8. 

Table D-8 

Representative Side-Scan Sonar Parameters for the High-Speed and High-Definition (HD) Operating Modes

100 kHz 400 kHz

High-Speed HD High-Speed HD

Output pulse energy (J) 4 2

Pulse duration (ms) ≤20 ≤10

rms SPL (dB re 1 μPa at1 m) 212 217 215 218

Transducers 2

Transducer along-track beam width 1.26° 0.64° 0.40° 0.30°

Transducer across-track beam width 50°

Transducer declination 20°

Transducer azimuth 90°, 270°
D-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Each transducer’s beam directivity was calculated based on the standard formula for the beam pattern 

of a rectangular transducer. These 3D beam patterns were then summed to produce the final sonar beam 

pattern. Figure D-22 presents the calculated beam power function for the representative side-scan sonar 

system at 100 kHz, operating in (a) high-speed mode and (b) high-definition mode. Figure D-23 shows 

vertical slices of the beam pattern at 100 kHz in the along- and across-track directions, for the sonar 

operating in high-speed mode.

Figure D-22. Calculated Beam Pattern for the Representative Side-Scan Sonar at 100 kHz, Operating in 

High-Speed Mode. Beam Power Function Shown Relative to the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson 

Projection.

 

Figure D-23. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for the Representative Side-Scan Sonar at 100 kHz Operating 

in High-Speed Mode; (left) Along- and (right) Across-Track Directions.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-27

Modeling Approach

The side-scan sonar was modeled in the high-speed operation mode with 100/400 kHz frequencies. 

The SL for the purpose of modeling was chosen to be 223 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m in each of the two 

frequency bands, for a total broadband rms SPL of 226 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. The tow depth of the source 

was chosen to be 5 m for modeling purposes. For the chosen rms SPL source level, the source levels in 

terms of the peak pressure level was calculated to be 229 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. The SEL in each of the two 

bands was estimated at 206 dB re 1 μPa2

·s at 1 m considering the pulse length of 20 ms.

With a very narrow beam width, the variability of the emitted energy in different directions in the 

horizontal plane is very high. A circular fan of modeling radials with variable angular step 

(see Table D-9) was created to a maximum range of 1.5 km from the source. The density of the radials 

was greater in proximity of the broadside, where beam variability is maximum, and lesser toward the 

endfire. The total number of rays modeled was 660.

Table D-9 

Variable Angular Steps of the Modeling Radials in Different Sectors. Only the Steps for the First Quadrant (0°-90°)

Are Shown; Those for the Other Quadrants Were Symmetrical

Sector Angular Step

0° – 45° 1°

45° – 80° 0.5°

80° – 90° 0.2°

The towing direction for each modeling site was selected individually based on the bathymetry, 

making the assumption that survey lines would run along the isobaths. The sound field was modeled 

using the MONM-BELLHOP acoustic propagation code. Since the SL was provided in rms SPL units, 

the output from the modeling was directly in terms of the rms SPL metric.

3.2.7. Chirp Subbottom Profiler

For the purpose of modeling a generic subbottom profiler source, the Knudsen Chirp 3260 model was 

chosen as representative example. This device is capable of working in three frequency bands 

simultaneously, providing subbottom images with acoustic signals at 3.5 kHz, 12 kHz, and 200 kHz. It 

uses two transducers, one operating at 3.5 kHz and the other at dual frequencies of 12 kHz and 200 kHz. 

The sonar head is mounted at the bottom of the ship’s hull, with the central axes of both transducers 

oriented directly downward.

The SL of the 3.5 kHz transducer is 222 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m at 3 kilowatt (kW) output power level 

(LGL, 2010). The maximum output power levels for the 12 kHz and 200 kHz bands are 3 kW and 

0.5 kW respectively. As no direct information about SLs was available for the 12 kHz and 200 kHz 

bands, these were estimated based on the output power levels for these bands relative to the output power 

level and corresponding SL for the 3.5 kHz band. The specifications of the subbottom profiler used for 

the modeling are presented in Table D-10. 

The beam patterns were estimated using a mathematical model based on beam forming theory. Since 

the transducers are hull mounted, it was assumed that the most of the acoustic energy is emitted in the 

downward half-space and that the upward component is negligible. 

Figures D-24 through D-26 present the calculated beam power function for the representative chirp 

subbottom profiler at 3.5, 12, and 200 kHz, respectively. Vertical slices of the beam patterns for the same 

three frequencies are shown in Figures D-27 through D-29. 
D-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table D-10

Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler Specifications

3.5 kHz 12 kHz 200 kHz

Beam Circular 30° Rectangular 26° by 38° Circular 8°

Output power 3 kW 3 kW 0.5 kW

rms SPL (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 222 222 215.2

Peak level (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 225 225 218.2

SEL (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 210.1 210.1 191.2

Total peak level (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 228.2

Ping duration (max) 64 ms 4 ms

Figure D-24. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler at 3.5 kHz. Beam Power 

Function Shown Relative to the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.

Figure D-25. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler at 12 kHz. Beam Power 

Function Shown Relative to the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-29

Figure D-26. Calculated Beam Pattern for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler at 200 kHz. Beam Power 

Function Shown Relative to the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.

Figure D-27. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler Operating at 

3.5 kHz.
D-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

 

Figure D-28. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler Operating at 

12 kHz (left) Along- and (right) Across-Track Directions.

Figure D-29. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for a Representative Chirp Subbottom Profiler Operating at 

200 kHz.

Modeling Approach

The chirp subbottom profiler was modeled operating at all three frequencies simultaneously. The 

depth of the source was chosen to be 5 m. A total of 72 radial profiles with equal angular steps of 5° and 

extending to a maximum range of 20 km from the source were modeled using the MONM-BELLHOP 

acoustic propagation model. The same assumption about source heading was made for the side-scan

sonar. The SLs were provided in rms SPL units; hence the output from the modeling was directly in 

terms of the rms SPL metric.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-31

3.2.8. Multibeam Depth Sounder

For the purpose of modeling a representative multibeam depth sounder, the RESON SeaBat 7101

model was selected as an example. This depth sounder uses the main working frequency of 240 kHz

(RESON, 2009). The system utilizes a single beam transducer and multibeam receiver. The transducer 

head is mounted at the bottom of the ship’s hull. The projector beam width is 1.5° in the along-track 

direction and 170° in the across-track direction. The specifications of the depth sounder used for the 

modeling are presented in Table D-11. 

Table D-11

Representative Multibeam Depth Sounder Specifications

Main Operational Frequency 240 kHz

Beam width along-track 1.5°

Beam width across-track 170°

rms SPL (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 210

Peak level (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 213

Pulse length 21–225 μs 

SEL (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) at 225 μs pulse length 173.5

The beam patterns were again estimated using a mathematical model based on beam forming theory. 

Since the transducers are hull mounted, it was assumed that most of the acoustic energy is emitted in the 

downward half-space and that the upward component is negligible. 

Figure D-30 presents the calculated beam power function for the representative multibeam depth 

sounder at 240 kHz. Vertical slices of the beam pattern in along- and across-track directions are shown in 

Figure D-31. 

Figure D-30. Calculated Beam Pattern for the Representative Multibeam Depth Sounder at 240 kHz. Beam Power 

Function Shown Relative to the On-Axis Level, Using the Robinson Projection.
D-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

 

Figure D-31. Calculated Beam Pattern Vertical Slice for the Representative Multibeam Depth Sounder at 240 kHz; 

(left) Along- and (right) Across-Track Directions.

Modeling Approach

The multibeam depth sounder was modeled at the single frequency of 240 kHz. The depth of the 

source was chosen to be 5 m. With a very narrow beam width, the variability of the emitted energy in 

different horizontal directions is very high. A circular fan of modeling radials with variable angular step 

(see Table D-12) was created to a maximum range of 20 km from the source. The density of the radials 

was greater in proximity of the broadside, where beam variability is maximum, and lesser toward the 

endfire. The total number of rays modeled was 660. The source heading was again chosen for each 

modeling site considering the bathymetry at that location, with the assumption that the survey lines would 

run along the isobaths. The SL was provided in rms SPL units, hence the output from the modeling was 

directly in terms of the rms SPL metric. The depth sounder was modeled only at the sites designated for 

renewable energy development (water depth ~100 m). The source level for the sonar was chosen to be 

210 dB re 1 μPa.

Table D-12

Variable Angular Steps of the Modeling Radials in Different Sectors. Only the Steps for the 

First Quadrant (0°-90°) Are Shown; Those for the Other Quadrants Were Symmetrical

Sector Angular Step

0° – 45° 1° 

45° – 80° 0.5°

80° – 90° 0.2°

3.2.9. Sparker

Sparkers are seismic sources that produce an electric arc between electrodes with a high voltage 

energy pulse. The arc momentarily vaporizes water in a localized volume and the vapor expands, 

generating a pressure wave. An example sparker system is shown in Figure D-32. Sparkers have an 

operating voltage of several kilovolts (kV) and the energy input can vary from several hundred joules (J) 

to tens of kilojoules (kJ). The source level depends on the input energy and is between 215 and 225 dB re 

1 μPa @ 1 m. The length of the pulse varies in the range of 0.3–5 ms and the generated frequencies are 

generally between 300 and 5,000 Hz (Table D-13) (Applied Acoustic Engineering Ltd., 2010a). The 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-33

pulse length and the frequency band depend on the input power. A sample spectrum for a sparker with 

input energy of 6 kJ is shown on Figure D-33. The sparkers are usually used with the same energy 

source as boomers (Applied Acoustics Engineering Ltd., 2010b). The receiver for sparker systems 

usually is a hydrophone or hydrophone array.

Figure D-32. The Sparker SQUID 500 (Applied Acoustic Engineering Ltd., 2010c).

Table D-13

SQUID 500 Sparker Specifications. (Applied Acoustic Engineering Ltd., 2010a,c) 

Operational Frequency Range Broad Band: 300 Hz – 5 kHz

Beam Widths (degrees) omnidirectional

Maximum Energy Input (per shot) 1200 J

Pulse Length 0.3 – 5 ms

rms SPL (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) at 800 J input energy 212

SEL (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) at 1.5 ms pulse 184

Figure D-33. Example of the pulse frequency spectrum from a Delta Sparker at 6 kJ (Applied Acoustic Engineering 

Ltd., 2010a).

The sparker generates an omnidirectional signal that can penetrate several hundred meters into the 

sediment with a resolution of several meters. Unlike airguns, sparkers produce no secondary pulses. 

Drawbacks of sparker sources include lack of directionality and low repeatability of the pulse. As with 

airgun sources, sparkers may be used in an array. 

The characteristics of the acoustic wave emitted by sparker source are comparable to the one for 

boomer source (see Section 3.2.5). The pulse length (for low energy operation) and source level are 

similar to the boomer specifications. The spectrum of the boomer source tends to extend further into 

higher frequency range (up to 10 kHz), however, at higher frequencies the boomer has strong 

directionality towards the bottom and insignificant contribution to the overall broadband level.

Considering the similarity of the parameters of the acoustic wave emitted by the sparker and boomer 

sources it can be said that for a rough estimation of the sound field produced by the sparker the modeling 

results for the boomer can be used. The sparker source was not modeled in this study since they obtain 

similar shallow penetration data. 
D-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4. MODELING METHODOLOGY

Distinct modeling approaches were used for the low-frequency sources (airgun arrays) and mid- and 

high-frequency sources (electromechanical sources).

The modeling of the underwater acoustic field resulting from the operation of a seismic array in a 

particular area involved the use of two complementary software codes. The AASM, described in 

Section 3.1.4, was used to predict the directional SL of a seismic airgun array. The MONM, an acoustic 

propagation model, was then used to estimate the acoustic field at any range from the source. Sound 

propagation modeling uses acoustic parameters appropriate for the specific geographic region of interest, 

including the water column sound speed profile, the bathymetry, and the bottom geoacoustic properties, 

to produce site-specific estimates of the radiated noise field as a function of range and depth. 

MONM-RAM, described in Section 4.1.1, was used to predict the directional TL footprint from various 

source locations corresponding to trial sites for experimental measurements. The RL at any 3D location 

away from the source is calculated by combining the SL and TL, both of which are direction dependent, 

using the fundamental relation RL SL −= TL . Acoustic TL and RL are a function of depth, range, 

bearing, and environmental properties of the propagation medium.

The RLs estimated by MONM, like the SLs from which they are computed, are expressed in terms of 

the so SEL metric over the duration of a single source pulse. Sound exposure level is expressed in units 

of dB re 1 μPa2 ·s. For the purposes of this study, the SEL results were converted to the rms SPL metric 

using a range dependent conversion coefficient (see Section 4.1.3). 

To model the sound field from the electromechanical sources a mathematical model

(see Sections 2.2.1–3.24) was used to estimate the source beam pattern taking into account source 

specification data. The MONM-BELLHOP propagation code was then used to estimate the acoustic field 

around the source. Source beam pattern data as well as bathymetry, sediment geoacoustic properties, and 

water sound velocity profile information were provided as inputs for the propagation code.

Once the unweighted acoustic fields were calculated, the M-weighting filters were applied to the 

fields to yield M-weighted acoustic fields. The application of the M-weighting filters were performed as 

outlined in Section 2.3.1 using Equation (6). 

4.1. SOUND PROPAGATION MODEL: MONM

JASCO’s MONM was used for the sound field modeling of all the sources in this study, using two 

variants of the computational engine for handling different frequency ranges. The MONM computes 

acoustic fields in 3D by modeling TL along evenly spaced 2D radial traverses covering a 360° swath from 

the source, an approach commonly referred to as N×2D. The model fully accounts for depth and/or range 

dependence of several environmental parameters including bathymetry and sound speed profiles in the 

water column and the subbottom. The acoustic environment is sampled at a fixed range step along radial 

traverses. The acoustic propagation code estimates sound pressure levels at various horizontal distances 

from the source as well as at different depths. Depending on the input source sound level metric 

provided, MONM can compute received sound fields in SEL or rms SPL metrics.

4.1.1. Low-Frequency – MONM-RAM

For the acoustic sources in the low-frequency band (below 2 kHz) the MONM-RAM variant of the 

computational code was used. In this study the sources that operate in the low-frequency bands are the 

airgun array sources and the boomer. For the former, the directional SLs computed with AASM were 

input to MONM-RAM to determine the predicted RLs.

The MONM-RAM treats sound propagation in range-varying acoustic environments through a 

wide-angled parabolic equation (PE) solution to the acoustic wave equation. The PE code used by 

MONM-RAM is based on a version of the Naval Research Laboratory’s RAM, which has been modified 

to account for an elastic seabed. The PE method has been extensively benchmarked and is widely 

employed in the underwater acoustics community (Collins et al., 1996). The MONM-RAM also accounts 

for the additional reflection loss at the seabed that is due to partial conversion of incident compressional 

waves to shear waves at the seabed and subbottom interfaces. It includes wave attenuations in all layers.

The MONM-RAM treats frequency dependence by computing acoustic TL at the center frequencies 

of third-octave bands, between 10 Hz and 2 kHz in this study. Third-octave band RLs are computed by 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-35

subtracting band TL values from the corresponding directional SLs. Broadband RLs are then computed 

by summing the received band levels. The MONM sound level predictions have been validated against 

experimental data in a formal study (Hannay and Racca, 2005) and in several instances where operational 

field measurements were obtained that allowed direct comparison to model estimates.

4.1.2. Mid- and High-Frequency – MONM-BELLHOP

For the acoustic sources in the mid- and high-frequency band (above 2 kHz), the MONM-BELLHOP

variant of the computational code was used. In this study the sources that operate in the mid- and 

high-frequency bands are the boomer, side-scan sonar, chirp subbottom profiler, and multibeam depth 

sounder. 

The MONM-BELLHOP models sound propagation in range-varying acoustic environments using the 

BELLHOP acoustic ray trace model (Porter and Liu, 1994), which is based on the Gaussian beam tracing 

technique. In addition to other types of attenuation, MONM-BELLHOP accounts for sound attenuation 

due to energy absorption through ion relaxation and viscosity of water (Fisher and Simmons, 1977). This 

type of attenuation is significant for frequencies higher than 5 kHz and cannot be neglected without 

noticeable effect on the modeling results at longer distances from the source.

The geoacoustic layering model for the MONM-BELLHOP propagation code consists of only one 

interface, namely the sea bottom. This is an acceptable limitation because the influence of the subbottom

layers on the propagation of acoustic waves with frequencies above 2 kHz is negligible.

The acoustic model takes into account the variability of the sound levels emitted in different 

directions from the source, referred to as source directivity. Source directivity is specified to the model as 

a function of both azimuthal and depression angle where azimuth is the horizontal direction relative to 

north and depression is the vertical angle relative to the horizontal plane.

4.1.3. Estimating 90 Percent RMS SPL from SEL for Airgun Array Sources

Existing U.S. safety radius regulations for impulsive sound sources are based on the rms SPL metric. 

An objective definition of pulse duration is needed when measuring the rms level for a pulse. Following 

suggestions by Malme et al. (1986), Greene (1997), and McCauley et al. (1998), pulse duration is 

conventionally taken to be the interval during which 90 percent of the pulse energy is received. Although 

the 90 percent rms SPL can be easily measured in situ, this metric is difficult to model in general because

the adaptive integration period, implicit in the definition of the 90 percent rms level, is highly sensitive to 

the specific multipath arrival pattern from an acoustic source and can vary abruptly with distance from the 

source or with depth of the receiver. To accurately predict the 90 percent rms level, it is necessary to 

model full-waveform acoustic propagation, which in highly range dependent environments is 

computationally overwhelming for long range, large water depth (more than 1,000 m), and multiple 

profile models.

Accurate estimates of airgun array safety ranges must take into account the acoustic energy that is 

returned to the water column by bottom and surface reflections. This is especially important in the case 

of shallow water conditions, which are found at many sites in the current study. If multipath reflections 

were taken into account, the resultant temporal spreading of the received seismic pulse would change the 

received pulse duration, rms estimates, and safety radii. The MONM algorithm does not attempt to 

predict the rms pressure directly; rather it models the propagation of acoustic energy in third-octave bands 

in a realistic, range-dependent acoustic environment. When these third-octave band levels are summed, 

the result is a broadband SEL, equivalent to the sound pressure level that would occur if the energy for a 

single airgun array pulse were spread evenly over a nominal time window of 1 s.

From these predicted SEL values, the approximate rms equivalents can be obtained taking into 

account the interrelationships of SEL, rms SPL, and pulse duration as known from theory and from field 

studies where these parameters have all been measured for the same received airgun pulses. The rms SPL 

based on the 90 percent energy pulse duration is related to SEL via a simple function that depends only on 

the rms integration period T: 

(11)

Here, the last term accounts for the fact that only 90 percent of the acoustic pulse energy is delivered 

over the standard integration period. In the absence of in situ measurements, the integration period is 

difficult to predict with any reasonable degree of accuracy.

SPLRMS90 SEL −= T − 458.0)log(10
D-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Two approaches can be used in this case. The first is to use a heuristic value of T, based on field 

measurements in similar environments, to estimate an rms SPL level from the modeled SEL. Safety radii 

estimated in this way are approximate since the true time spreading of the pulse has not actually been 

modeled. In various studies where the SPLRMS 90, SEL, and duration have been determined for individual 

airgun pulses, the average offset between SPL and SEL has been found to be 5–15 dB, with considerable 

variation dependent on water depth and geo-acoustic environment (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 2000; 

Blackwell et al., 2007; MacGillivray et al., 2007). On average, the measured SPL–SEL offsets tend to be 

larger at close distances, where the pulse duration is short (<<1 s), and to diminish at longer distances, 

where pulse duration tends to increase because of propagation effects.

An alternative approach is to use a full-waveform acoustic propagation model to generate 

range-dependent estimates of SPL and SEL for a small set of representative transects, and then apply the 

SPL-SEL offsets obtained in this manner to the full MONM results. This approach combines the accurate 

pulse length information available from the full-waveform model with the greater computational 

efficiency of the MONM algorithm. For the conversion of the acoustic field in SEL metrics to rms SPL 

metrics, appropriate SPL–SEL range dependent functions are selected from the set of available 

representative transects on the basis of similarity of water depth and bottom type.

For this study a combination of the two approaches was chosen. The results of the full waveform 

estimation were combined with the data obtained during field measurements of similar sources in similar 

environments (e.g., Austin et al., 2003; Funk et al., 2008). Full-waveform results were derived for 

idealized flat bottom models with water depths of 40, 150, and 1,000 m. The bottom type was sand for 

the 40 and 150 m models and clay for the 1,000 m model. The estimated range dependent SPL–SEL 

offset functions used in this study are shown in Figure D-34. 

Figure D-34. SPL–SEL Conversion Functions for Different Water Depths. 

In applying the above conversions to the model results in this study, the sites with water depths from 

30-60 m were assigned the SPL–SEL function for 40 m depth, the sites with water depth from 61-300 m 

the function for 150 m, and the sites deeper than 300 m the function for 1,000 m water depth.

4.2. MODELING PROCEDURE

4.2.1. Area of Interest and Proposed Activities

The AOI 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 648 km (350 nmi) from shore 

(Figure D-35). The total area of the AOI is 854,779 km2 (330,032 mi2

). The water depths inside the AOI

vary from a few meters to more than 5,000 m, covering various types of oceanic bottom: continental 

shelf, continental slope and rise, and abyssal plain.

Three major program areas of G&G activities are included in this study:

• oil and gas exploration; 

• renewable energy development; and

• marine minerals. 

Different activities would be performed in specific water depths. The types of acoustic sources are 

also defined by the type of planned activity (Table D-14). 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-37

Figure D-35. Area of Interest with the Locations of the Modeling Sites.
D-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table D-14 

List of Proposed G&G Activities and Sources

Activity Type Acoustic Source

Representative Modeling

Water Depth

(m) Acoustic Source

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (50–6,000 m)

2D seismic survey Airgun array

3,000–9,000 in3 50 – 6,000 Large airgun array5,400 in3

3D seismic survey Dual airgun array

3,000–9,000 in3 50 – 6,000 Large airgun array5,400 in3

Vertical seismic profiling Airgun array

1,000–6,000 in3 50 – 6,000 Large airgun array5,400 in3

High-resolution geophysical survey Single gun or airgun array

45–200 in3 50 – 6,000 Small airgun array90 in3

Renewable Energy (0–100 m)

Bathymetry data collection Multibeam depth sounder 100 Multibeam depth soundera

Bottom obstruction detection Side-scan sonar 100 Side-scan sonar

Shallow sediment mapping

(0–100 mbsf)

Shallow penetration 

subbottom profiler 100 Chirper

Medium depth sediment mapping

(0–200 mbsf)

Medium penetration 

subbottom profiler 100 Boomerb

Marine Minerals (0–50 m)

Bathymetry data collection Multibeam depth sounder 30 Multibeam depth sounder

Bottom obstruction detection Side-scan sonar 30 Side-scan sonar

Shallow sediment mapping

(0–100 mbsf)

Shallow penetration 

subbottom profiler 30 Chirper

Medium depth sediment mapping

(0–200 mbsf)

Medium penetration 

subbottom profiler 30 Boomerb

Abbreviations: mbsf = meters below seafloor. a single beam echosounder could be used in place of a multibeam depth sounder, but were not modeled due to their low source 

level and narrow beam relative to multibeams. b sparkers could also be used, but were not modeled due to the acoustic similarities to boomers. 

Oil and gas explorations surveys could occur at water depths ranging from 50 m to more than 

4,000 m, covering all three bottom types – shelf, slope, and abyssal plain. The acoustic sources that 

would be utilized for these surveys include seismic airgun arrays of different types. The volume of air 

gun arrays may vary from less than 100 in3 (high-resolution geohazard seismic surveys) to more than 

5,000 in3 (2D and 3D seismic surveys). 

Renewable energy development and marine mineral surveys would be limited to shallow waters with 

maximum water depth of about 100 m. The acoustic sources involved would include mid- to 

high-frequency electromechanical sources (boomers, chirp subbottom profilers, side-scan sonars, 

multibeam depth sounders, etc.).

The information about the selected modeling sites is provided in Table D-15, and the map with the 

locations of these sites is shown in Figure D-35. 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-39

Table D-15 

Modeling Site Information

Site

Number

Geographic

Coordinates UTM Coordinates Bottom

Type

Water 

Depth at 

the Source

(m)

Towing 

Azimuth North West Northing Easting Zone

1 32.00 -72.00 3544000 783000 18 Clay 5,390 N/A

2 32.75 -76.00 3624000 406000 18 Clay 2,560 N/A

3 31.00 -78.00 3433000 214000 18 Sand 880 N/A

4 30.48 -80.09 3373000 588000 17 Sand 249 N/A

5 36.25 -74.77 4012000 520000 18 Sand 288 N/A

6 31.50 -75.00 3485000 500000 18 Clay 3,200 N/A

7 31.85 -79.16 3526000 674000 17 Sand 251 N/A

8 34.59 -75.63 3828000 443000 18 Sand 249 N/A

9 36.00 -74.79 3984000 519000 18 Sand 275 N/A

10 36.50 -71.00 4041000 321000 19 Clay 4,300 N/A

11 36.84 -73.31 4079000 651000 18 Clay 3,010 N/A

12 29.50 -75.50 3263000 452000 18 Clay 4,890 N/A

13 31.00 -75.50 3430000 452000 18 Clay 3,580 N/A

14 32.00 -79.25 3542000 665000 17 Sand 100 N/A

15 36.51 -74.82 4040000 516000 18 Sand 51 N/A

16 36.16 -75.24 4001808 478773 18 Sand 30 N/A

17 36.09 -74.84 3993702 514548 18 Sand 100 10°

18 34.80 -75.89 3851633 418959 18 Sand 30 40°

19 34.70 -75.63 3840310 442218 18 Sand 100 40°

20 32.30 -79.52 3574265 639795 17 Sand 30 35°

21 30.55 -80.64 3380052 534518 17 Sand 30 20°

22 30.49 -80.16 3372884 580545 17 Sand 100 20°

N/A = not applicable. Towing azimuth not needed for calculations because the seafloor is flat.

4.2.2. Model Profiles

Both acoustic propagation models, MONM-RAM and MONM-BELLHOP, compute acoustic fields 

along one 2D radial traverse at a time. One can obtain a 3D distribution of the acoustic field around a 

source by combining a set of radial traverses covering a 360° swath from the source. The angular step 

between the radials can be either constant or variable, depending on the type of source and its horizontal 

directivity function. This approach commonly is referred to as N×2D.

Assuming that the bottom geoacoustic properties and the water column are uniform in all directions 

from a given modeling site, the parameters that change from profile to profile are the bathymetry and the 

SL for a directional source. For an omnidirectional source, the only parameter that would change 

between profiles is the bathymetry.

For the purpose of this study an adaptive approach was taken for defining the distribution of modeling 

profiles. For the boomer and airgun array sources, the profiles were evenly spaced around the source; the 

number of profiles, however, depended on the water depth observed inside the modeling area, varied from 

120 (3° step) to 24 (15° step). Also for the very deep sites (water depth more than 3,000 m), only one 

profile was modeled and then cloned 24 times along the fan of radials. This approach was considered 

readily justifiable since the bathymetry, which is the only parameter that would change from profile to 

profile, is virtually flat at deep sites and at such depths has very little influence on the sound propagation. 

The angular step and the total number of profiles modeled at different sites for the boomer and airgun 

arrays sources are provided in Table D-16. 
D-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table D-16 

Modeling Profile Information for Airgun Array Sources at Different Sites

Site Number

Water Depth 

at the Source

(m)

Number of Profiles Angular Step

Maximum 

Receiver Depth

(m)

1 5,390 1 – 2,000

2 2,560 24 15° 2,000

3 880 120 3° 1,000

4 249 120 3° 500

5 288 72 5° 2,000

6 3,200 1 – 2,000

7 251 120 3° 600

8 249 72 5° 2,000

9 275 72 5° 2,000

10 4,300 1 – 2,000

11 3,010 1 – 2,000

12 4,890 1 – 2,000

13 3,580 1 – 2,000

14 100 120 3° 650

15 51 72 5° 2,000

16 30 72 5° 40

17 100 72 5° 200

18 30 72 5° 50

19 100 72 5° 1,000

20 30 72 5° 50

21 30 72 5° 40

22 100 72 5° 500

The angular step size for the high-frequency sources was chosen based on the minimum beam width 

and the directivity pattern. The minimum angular step size was chosen to be no more than half the size of 

the beam width. The modeling profiles information for the engineering source, except the boomer is 

provided in Table D-17. The same profile pattern was used for all sites where these sources were 

modeled, namely locations 16-22. The water depth at the source and the maximum receiver depth are the 

same as shown in Table D-16. 

Table D-17 

Modeling Profile Information for Electromechanical Sources Except the Boomer

Source Smallest Beam Width Number of Profiles Angular Step Size

Side-scan sonar 0.4° 660 Variable: 0.2°–1°

Chirp subbottom profiler 8° 72 Constant: 5°

Multibeam depth sounder 1° 309 Variable: 0.5°–2°

4.2.3. Model Receiver Depths

Model receiver depths are the depths below the water surface at which virtual receivers are placed in 

the acoustic propagation model and the TL is sampled. From the chosen source positions, the model can 

generate a grid of predicted acoustic levels over any desired area, as well as at any depth in the water 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-41

column. The virtual receivers can, in principle, be placed at a vertical step size as fine as the acoustic 

field modeling grid, which varies from 2 m for low frequencies to 6 cm for high frequencies. Such a fine 

grid of receivers, however, would be very inefficient and provide too large a quantity of data. The depth 

spacing between the receiver planes was therefore chosen on the basis of the vertical variability of the 

acoustic field, which in turn depends on the variability of the sound speed profile – higher at the top of the 

water column, lower at greater depths. The maximum depth for the virtual receivers (2,000 m) was 

chosen based on the normal dive depth limits for the marine mammals in the AOI. 

The set of virtual receivers depths for the sites designated for oil and gas exploration (water depth 

from 50-5,390 m) was: 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 500, 550, 600, 650, 

700, 750, 800, 850, 900, 950, 1,000, 1,100, 1200, 1,400, 1,600, 1,800, and 2,000 m.

For the sites where electromechanical sources were modeled (water depths at the source 30 and 

100 m) several depths were added at the top of the water column. The set of virtual receiver depths for 

the sites designated for marine minerals and renewable energy development (sites 16-22) was as follows: 

2, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, 20, 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 

500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, 900, 950, and 1,000 m.

4.2.4. Model Radial Step Size

The quality of the modeling results is highly dependent on the radial step size, as with too large a step 

the modeling approximation can become unstable and produce inaccurate results. For the purpose of this 

study the radial modeling step size was set at a very finely resolved 5 m. Further reduction of the step 

size provides virtually no quality benefit for the results while increasing the computational requirements. 

Before transferring the modeled acoustic field data for use with the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) 

individual-based exposure model, however, the radial results were downsampled with a variable step size 

in order to increase the efficiency of the data processing. The set of distances from the source in meters at 

which the received acoustic field was reported for use in AIM was generated according to the following 

equation:

r = i2 , where i = 1,2,3,...,141 (12)

4.3. BATHYMETRY AND ACOUSTIC PARAMETERS

4.3.1. Bathymetry

The bathymetry data for this project was provided by CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. The bathymetry grid 

spans from 28° N to 40° N and from 66.5° W to 82.5° W, fully covering the AOI. The resolution of the 

grid is about 1.5 arc seconds or approximately 50 m.

For the purpose of modeling, smaller portions of the large grid were extracted for each modeling site. 

The overall bathymetry information was considered from the start in choosing the locations for the 

modeling sites, both in terms of selecting locations with desired water depths and of avoiding areas with 

highly site-specific bathymetry features such as localized sea bottom rises or depressions.

4.3.2. Geoacoustic Properties

In view of the generalized nature of this study, a more generic approach to the definition of 

geoacoustic properties was exercised than would normally be used for site specific modeling. The AOI

spans numerous geological provinces with highly variable stratification profiles. It would not have been 

opportune to consider site specific geoacoustic profiles, since the acoustic modeling results thus obtained 

would introduce excessive bias when used as estimation for other locations. Generic geoacoustic profiles 

were created instead, which only take into account the type of sediment found at the sea bottom with the 

appropriate porosity value and typical porosity trend with depth below the seafloor (which is sediment 

type specific). Any layered model of the sediment column was avoided, i.e. there were no interfaces in 

the geoacoustic profiles at which a rapid change of properties is observed because of sediment type 

transition. Instead, only a gradual change of properties with depth was introduced.

The acoustic properties of sediment layers that are required by MONM are density (ρ), compressional 

speed (Vp), compressional attenuation coefficient in decibels per wavelength (αp), shear wave speed (Vs), 

and shear wave attenuation coefficient (αs), also in decibels per wavelength. These geoacoustic 

parameters were estimated using a sediment grain-shearing model (Buckingham, 2005), which computes 
D-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

the acoustic properties of the sediments from porosity and grain-size measurements. The input parameters 

required by the geoacoustic model were the bottom type (grain size) and sediment porosity, inferred from 

the geological description of the modeling region.

Numerous surficial sediment-type data exist for the Atlantic region off-shore U.S. coast, for example 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Continental Margin Program (Hathaway, 1977) and the National 

Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) Seafloor Sediment Descriptions (Bershad and Weiss, 1975). Poppe et 

al. (1989) provided a map of distribution of the surficial sediments for the region. According to the map, 

the surficial sediments over 85 percent of the area of interest are represented either by sand or clay. The 

remaining 15 percent of the area is characterized by transitional sediment types.

The distribution of the specific type of sediment is primarily determined by the bathymetry. 

Sediments that can be described as sand are found at water depths from 0-1,000 m. In deeper 

environment the prevailing sediment type is clay, which is found at water depths 900 m and greater.

Clay

The geoacoustic profile for clay sediments was constructed based on the data obtained by the Ocean 

Drilling Program (ODP) at site 905, leg 150 (Shipboard Scientific Party, 1994). The well was located at a 

water depth of 2,700 m. The reported porosity for the surficial sediments was 60 percent and did not 

change with depth, maintaining the same value of 60 percent down to 600 m below the seafloor. The 

geoacoustic model for clay sediments is presented in Table D-18. 

Table D-18 

Geoacoustic Model for the Clay Sediments

Depth

(m)

ρ

(g/cm3)

Vp

(m/s)

αp

(dB/λ)

Vs

(m/s)

αs

(dB/λ)

0–10 1.70 1,563–1,613 0.19–0.40

61 0.01

10–50 1.70 1,613–1,683 0.40–0.67

50–150 1.70 1,683–1,763 0.67–0.93

150–300 1.70 1,763–1,833 0.93–1.14

300–600 1.70 1,833–1,925 1.14–1.37

>600 1.70 1,925 1.37

Sand

The geoacoustic profile for sand sediments was constructed based on the data obtained by the ODP at 

site 1071, leg 174 (Shipboard Scientific Party, 1998). The well was located at a water depth of 100 m. 

The reported porosity for the surficial sediments was 50 percent and decreased gradually decreasing with 

depth below the seafloor; at 150 m below the seafloor the porosity reached 40 percent and did not change 

for greater depths. The geoacoustic model for sand sediments is presented in Table D-19. 

Table D-19 

Geoacoustic Model for the Sand Sediments

Depth

(m)

ρ

(g/cm3

) 

Vp

(m/s)

αp

(dB/λ)

Vs

(m/s)

αs

(dB/λ)

0–10 1.87 1,648–1,785 0.45–0.92

158 0.07

10–50 1.87 1,785–1,987 0.92–1.45

50–150 1.87–2.04 1,987–,2276 1.45–1.79

150–300 2.04 2,276–2,482 1.79–2.08

300–600 2.04 2,482 2.08
Acoustic Modeling Report D-43

4.3.3. Sound Speed Profiles

The vertical sound speed profiles used in this modeling study were provided by Marine Acoustics, 

Inc. (MAI). The selected profiles were to reflect the variation of the sea water properties at different 

locations throughout the AOI as well as seasonal variation at the same location. They represent various 

types of sound propagation through the water layer such as ducted propagation, presence of convergence 

zone, and bottom bounce propagation.

As indicated by MAI, the data for the computation of the sound velocity in the water column were 

mined from the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) 

database (Teague et al., 1990). The GDEM database provides average monthly profiles of temperature 

and salinity for the world’s oceans on a latitude-longitude grid with 0.25-degree resolution. Profiles in 

GDEM are provided at 78 fixed-depth points up to a maximum depth of 6,800 m. The profiles in GDEM 

are based on historical observations of global temperature and salinity from the U.S. Navy’s Master 

Oceanographic Observational Data Set (MOODS). The GDEM provides historical average profiles that 

extend to the maximum depth in a given 15-arc-minute square. The parameters for the sound speed 

profiles used in this study are shown in Table D-20. The sound speed profiles for the winter, spring, 

summer, and fall seasons are shown in Figures D-36 through D-39, respectively. 

Table D-20

The List of Sound Speed Profiles Used in This Study

Profile Number Season Propagation Characteristic Representative Location

1 Winter Convergence zone (deep water)

Bottom bounce (mid-range water depth) 32°45’N 72°00’W

2 Winter Shallow water 30°30’N 74°45’W

3 Winter Shallow water 36°15’N 80°15’W

4 Spring Convergence zone (deep water)

Bottom bounce (mid-range water depth) 31°30’N 75°00’W

5 Spring Bottom bounce (shallow water) 32°00’N 79°15’W

6 Spring Moderately ducted (shallow water) 35°00’N 76°15’W

7 Summer Convergence zone (deep water)

Bottom bounce (mid-range water depth) 31°30’N 75°00’W

8 Summer Shallow water 36°00’N 74°45’W

9 Fall Convergence zone (deep water) 36°30’N 71°30’W

10 Fall Convergence zone (deep water)

Bottom bounce (mid-range water depth) 31°00’N 78°00’W

11 Fall Shallow water 32°00’N 79°15’W

12 Fall Shallow water 36°30’N 74°45’W
D-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure D-36. Sound Velocity Profiles for Winter Season Used in This Modeling Study: Fully Extended to the 

Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right).

Figure D-37. Sound Velocity Profiles for Spring Season Used in This Modeling Study: Fully Extended to the 

Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right).
Acoustic Modeling Report D-45

Figure D-38. Sound Velocity Profiles for Summer Seasons Used in This Modeling Study: Fully Extended to the

Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right).

Figure D-39. Sound Velocity Profiles for Fall Season Used in This Modeling Study: Fully Extended to the 

Maximum Depth (left) and Zoomed-in Upper Portion (right).
D-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.4. MODELING SCENARIOS

A total of 22 modeling sites was identified in various parts of the AOI (see Table D-15 and 

Figure D-35). For each site, modeling was done using 1-4 different sound velocity profiles 

(see Table D-20 and Figures D-36 through D-39), for a total of 35 modeling scenarios. The geoacoustic 

model also varied from site to site. Scenarios from 1-21 were designated for modeling oil and gas 

exploration activities using airgun array sources. Scenarios 22-35 were modeled for marine minerals and 

renewable energy development using the boomer, side-scan sonar, chirp subbottom profiler, and 

multibeam depth sounder. 

The complete list of scenarios modeled in this study together with indication of the sources that were 

modeled for each scenario is provided in Table D-21. There were a total of 105 combinations of 

scenarios and sources. For each combination, an acoustic field was modeled and threshold distances to 

the specified rms SPL value were calculated. Each acoustic field was also downsampled as previously 

described and provided as an input for exposure modeling with the AIM software.

4.5. CLASSIFICATION OF ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENTS

Each acoustic modeling scenario is characterized by a unique combination of parameters. The main 

variables in the environment configuration are the bathymetry and the sound velocity profile in the water 

column. The geoacoustic properties of the sea bottom are directly correlated with the water depth of the 

modeling site. The major factor that affects sound propagation in different areas throughout the AOI is 

the water depth. Four regions can be classified based on the bathymetry: 

• shallow continental shelf (<60 m);

• continental shelf (60–150 m);

• continental slope (150–1,000 m); and

• deep ocean (>1,000 m).

Each region exhibits a specific acoustic propagation regime, which will be discussed in following 

sections and exemplified graphically using frequency versus distance plots. These are useful tools for 

analysis of the acoustic propagation environment, as they help to understand how the physical conditions, 

mostly water depth, affect propagation of the acoustic waves at different frequencies.

4.5.1. Shallow Continental Shelf

Shallow continental shelf is defined as the areas with depth less than 60 m. Modeling sites that fall 

into this region are 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21. The bottom type for this area is sand and the bottom sloping is 

minimal, usually less than 0.1°. Inside each modeling area (20 km radius) the variability in depth is less 

than 5 m; such a small variation in bathymetry has virtually no effect on the sound propagation in 

different directions from the source except for some local features of the sea bottom.

An example of frequency versus distance plot for Scenario 22 (Site 16) is provided in Figure D-40. 

The shallow environment does not favor the propagation of low frequencies as the mode propagation 

condition cannot be established for the acoustic waves at these frequencies. The TL for frequencies lower 

than 20 Hz is significantly greater than for higher frequencies. Acoustic waves with frequencies between 

20 and 80 Hz also experience higher attenuation due to shallow environment.

The vertical sound speed profile in the water column has very little influence on the propagation of 

the sound in shallow waters, as the variation in sound velocity is not significant in the top 30 m of the 

profile. The geometric spreading of the acoustic wave energy transitions from spherical-spreading into a 

cylindrical-spreading regime very close to the source. A highly reflective bottom interface ensures that 

most of the acoustic energy is returned into the water column after interaction with the seafloor, and 

bottom reflections contribute significantly to the total acoustic field.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-47

Table D-21

List of Modeling Scenarios

Scenario 

Number

Site 

Number

Water 

Depth

(m)

Season Sound 

Profile

Bottom 

Type

Modeled Sources

5,400 in3

Airgun 

Array

90 in3

Airgun 

Array

Boomera, 

SSS, SBP MBE

1 1 5,390 Winter SVP 01 Clay X X

2 2 2,560 Winter SVP 01 Clay X X

3 3 880 Winter SVP 01 Sand X X

4 4 249 Winter SVP 02 Sand X X

5 5 288 Winter SVP 03 Sand X X

6 1 5,390 Spring SVP 04 Clay X X

7 6 3,200 Spring SVP 04 Clay X X

8 3 8,80 Spring SVP 04 Sand X X

9 7 251 Spring SVP 05 Sand X X

10 8 249 Spring SVP 06 Sand X X

11 1 5,390 Summer SVP 07 Clay X X

12 6 3,200 Summer SVP 07 Clay X X

13 3 880 Summer SVP 07 Sand X X

14 9 275 Summer SVP 08 Sand X X

15 10 4,300 Fall SVP 09 Clay X X

16 11 3,010 Fall SVP 09 Clay X X

17 12 4,890 Fall SVP 10 Clay X X

18 13 3,580 Fall SVP 10 Clay X X

19 3 880 Fall SVP 10 Sand X X

20 14 100 Fall SVP 11 Sand X X

21 15 51 Fall SVP 12 Sand X X

22 16 30 Spring SVP 03 Sand X

23 17 100 Spring SVP 03 Sand X X

24 16 30 Summer SVP 08 Sand X

25 17 100 Summer SVP 08 Sand X X

26 16 30 Fall SVP 12 Sand X

27 17 100 Fall SVP 12 Sand X X

28 18 30 Spring SVP 06 Sand X

29 19 100 Spring SVP 06 Sand X X

30 20 30 Spring SVP 05 Sand X

31 14 100 Spring SVP 05 Sand X X

32 20 30 Fall SVP 11 Sand X

33 14 100 Fall SVP 11 Sand X X

34 21 30 Winter SVP 02 Sand X

35 22 100 Winter SVP 02 Sand X X

Abbreviations: MBE = multibeam depth sounder; SBE = chirp subbottom profiler; SSS = side-scan sonar. a Sparkers could be used in certain instances in place of boomers, but the boomer modeling is representative of both. 
D-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure D-40. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 22 (SVP 03). Water Depth at 

the Source is 30 m.

4.5.2. Continental Shelf

For the purpose of this work, continental shelf is defined as the areas with water depth less than 

150 m with the exclusion of areas defined as shallow continental shelf in Section 4.5.1. Modeling site 

numbers that fall into this region are 14, 17, 19, and 22. The bottom type for this area is sand and the 

bottom sloping is more pronounced than in the shallow continental area, with a slope varying from 

0.5°-1° and a bathymetry condition that can be no longer be considered flat. With a water depth at the 

source of 100 m, the depth inside the modeling area (20 km radius) can vary from 40 m to as deep as 

1,500 m.

An example of frequency versus distance plot for Scenario 23 (Site 17) is provided in Figure D-41. 

With greater water depth than in the shallow continental shelf environment, all modeled frequencies can 

effectively propagate through the water layer waveguide; very low frequencies (10–15 Hz), however, still 

experience elevated TL compared to the higher frequencies.

Figure D-41. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 23 (SVP 03). Water Depth at 

the Source is 100 m.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-49

The vertical sound speed profile in the water column influences the propagation of the sound in the 

area. Most of the sound speed profiles used in the modeling scenarios feature negative velocity gradient 

at a depth of 30 m below the sea surface. Negative velocity gradient refracts the acoustic wave 

downwards and directs it into the seafloor, increasing the effect of bottom loss. The TL for high 

frequencies (100–2,000 Hz) is greater compared to the shallow continental shelf regions.

The geometric spreading of the acoustic wave energy still transitions into cylindrical spreading 

regime very close to the source. A highly reflective bottom interface ensures that most of the acoustic 

energy is returned into the water column after interaction with the seafloor, and bottom reflections 

contribute significantly to the total acoustic field.

4.5.3. Continental Slope

For the purpose of this work, continental slope is defined as the areas with water depth between 

150 and 1,000 m. Modeling site numbers that fall into this category are 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. The bottom 

type for this area is sand and the bottom inclination is significant, reaching values as high as 13°. With a 

water depth at the source between 250 and 900 m, the depth inside the modeling area (20 km radius) can 

vary from 40 m to as deep as 2,500 m.

Two examples of frequency versus distance plot for Scenario 14 (Site 9) and for Scenario 3 (Site 3) 

are provided in Figures D-42 and D-43, respectively. With greater water depth than in continental shelf 

environment, all modeled frequencies can effectively propagate through the water layer waveguide. Low 

frequencies (10–100 Hz), however, can still experience elevated TL for a shallow location of the 

source.The sound speed profile in the water column influences the propagation of the sound in the area. 

Most of the sound speed profiles used in the modeling scenarios feature negative velocity gradient from 

30 m to about 1,200 m below the sea surface. Negative velocity gradient refracts the acoustic wave 

downward and directs it into the seafloor, increasing the effect of the bottom loss. The TL for high 

frequencies (100–2,000 Hz) is greater compared to the shallow continental shelf regions.

The geometric spreading of the acoustic wave energy transitions into a cylindrical-spreading regime 

at about 250 m or farther from the source. A highly reflective bottom interface ensures that most of the 

acoustic energy is returned into the water column after interaction with the seafloor, and bottom 

reflections contribute significantly to the total acoustic field near the source; their contribution, however, 

diminishes for greater water depths at the source.

Figure D-42. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 14 (SVP 08). Water Depth at 

the Source is 250 m.
D-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure D-43. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 3 (SVP 01). Water Depth at the 

Source is 880 m.

4.5.4. Deep Ocean

For the purpose of this work, deep ocean is defined as the areas with water depth greater than 

1,000 m. Modeling site numbers that fall into this category are 1, 2, 6, and 10–13. The bottom type for 

this area is clay; bottom sloping can be significant near the continental slope regions and almost absent at

depths greater than 2,000 m. The relative variation of the water depth inside a modeling area (radius 

20 km) is small.

An example of frequency versus distance plot for Scenario 1 (Site 1) is provided in Figure D-44. 

With larger water depths all modeled frequencies can effectively propagate through the water layer 

waveguide. However, low frequencies (10–100 Hz) can still experience elevated TL for a shallow 

location of the source.

Figure D-44. Frequency Versus Distance Plot Based on Modeled Data for Scenario 1 (SVP 01). Water Depth at the 

Source is 5,390 m.

The vertical sound speed profile in the water column has significant effect on the propagation of the 

sound in the area. All sound speed profiles used in the modeling scenarios feature a deep sound channel 

at about 1,200–1,300 m below the surface. Positive velocity gradient refracts the acoustic wave upwards 

and directs it away from the bottom, decreasing the effect of the bottom loss. Also, shadow zones can be 

established in the water volume because of refraction. At the sites with water depths greater than 4,000 m 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-51

a ray convergence effect can be observed; such a phenomenon can, over small volumes, lower the TL to 

as little as 60 dB at distances of 130 km.

Spherical spreading of the acoustic wave energy can persists as far as 5,000 m from the emitter 

(a range equal to the water depth at the source). Since the reflection coefficient of the clay bottom is low, 

most of the waterborne acoustic energy reaching the sediment layer experiences substantial loss. There is 

no significant contribution from bottom reflections to the total acoustic field near the source because of 

the large difference in travel distance between the direct and reflected wave.

5. MODEL RESULTS

The sound propagation code was run in the full N×2D scheme as described in Section 4.1.1 for each 

of the 35 model scenarios and corresponding acoustic sources for a total of 105 combinations of sources 

and scenarios. The model estimates of received SEL for the airgun array sources were converted to rms 

SPL as outlined in Section 4.1.3. 

To produce single maps of received sound level distribution and to calculate threshold distances to 

specified levels, the maximum level over all modeled receiver depths was calculated at each horizontal 

point of the modeling regions. The radial grid of modeled profiles was then resampled to produce a 

regular Cartesian grid with a cell size of 5 m. All contours and threshold ranges were calculated from 

these flat Cartesian projections of the estimated acoustic fields. The sound level maps, grouped by 

scenarios, are provided in Attachment B, Figures Attachment B-1 through B-35. 

For each sound level threshold, two different statistical estimates of the safety radii are provided in 

the tables in Attachment C: the maximum range and the 95 percent range. Given a regularly gridded

spatial distribution of modeled RLs, the 95 percent range is defined as the radius of a circle that 

encompasses 95 percent of the grid points whose value is equal to or greater than the threshold value. 

This definition is meaningful in terms of potential impact to an animal because, regardless of the 

geometrical shape of the noise footprint for a given threshold level, it always provides a range beyond 

which no more than 5 percent of a uniformly distributed population would be exposed to sound at or 

above that level. The maximum range, which is simply the distance to the farthest occurrence of the 

threshold level, is the more conservative but may misrepresent the effective exposure zone. Indeed, there 

are cases where the volume ensonified to a specific level may not be continuous and small pockets of 

higher RLs may be found far outside the main ensonified volume (for example, because of convergence). 

If only the maximum range is presented, a false impression of the extent of the acoustic field can be 

given.

Tables D-22 and D-23 summarize the results of the acoustic modeling in terms of threshold radii to 

the 160 dB and 180 dB rms SPL for the airgun arrays and electromechanical sources respectively. The 

complete sets of predicted threshold radii for each source to levels from 210 dB down to 150 dB rms SPL 

in 10 dB steps are presented in Attachment C, Tables Attachment C-1 through Attachment C-6. 

From the tabulated results it can be seen that the largest threshold radii for the airgun array sources 

are typically associated with sites in intermediate water depths (250 and 900 m); this is especially 

applicable to the 160 dB level. As noted above, low frequencies propagate relatively poorly in shallow 

water (i.e., water depths on the same order as or less than the wavelength). At intermediate water depths, 

this stripping of low-frequency sound no longer occurs, and longer-range propagation can be enhanced by 

the channeling of sound caused by reflection from the surface and seafloor (depending on the nature of 

the sound speed profile and sediment type). 

The modeling results for the radii for the specific threshold levels presented in Table D-23 do not 

account for the difference between the length of the pulse emitted by the acoustic instrument and the 

minimum integration time of the mammalian hearing apparatus. Instead, a receiver with unlimited 

minimum integration time was considered in the calculations. The calculation of rms SPL depends on the 

integration time (see Equation [1]). The application of the appropriate minimum integration time 

assumed for the marine mammals can significantly decrease the received rms SPL levels and, 

consequently, the threshold radii. The adjustment of the received rms SPL for the different integration 

time can be calculated with Equation [7]. Table D-24 provides the adjustment values for the 

representative electromechanical sources with their respective pulse durations and the assumed minimum 

integration time of 100 ms.
D-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table D-22 

Summary of the Predicted Threshold Radii (in Meters) for the 180 and 160 dB SPL (rms) for Airgun Array Sources

Source Airgun Array 5,400 in3 Airgun Array 90 in3

dB SPL 180 160 180 160

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

1 835 810 5,379 4,969 148 144 1,295 1,256

2 876 827 5,720 5,184 148 143 1,363 1,291

3 1,557 1,093 9,329 8,104 148 145 2,210 2,038

4 822 748 12,737 8,725 76 75 1,452 1,342

5 816 742 13,337 8,896 76 74 1,568 1,286

6 837 811 5,379 4,989 148 144 1,295 1,256

7 855 829 5,322 5,026 146 142 1,322 1,281

8 1,556 1,091 9,654 8,056 148 145 2,212 2,039

9 801 737 11,056 8,593 76 74 1,464 1,331

10 799 752 11,695 8,615 76 75 1,512 1,108

11 837 811 5,379 4,973 146 143 1,295 1,255

12 853 827 5,320 5,013 146 141 1,321 1,280

13 1,552 1,082 9,316 8,095 147 143 2,211 2,036

14 880 761 15,305 9,122 76 74 1,371 1,100

15 841 816 5,490 5,121 146 143 1,315 1,258

16 871 846 5,360 5,098 149 145 1,325 1,285

17 838 812 5,184 4,959 149 145 1,294 1,255

18 845 819 5,450 5,069 148 145 1,329 1,289

19 1,559 1,094 9,304 8,083 149 145 2,212 2,040

20 1,134 992 12,022 8,531 90 86 2,051 1,681

21 2,109 1,677 11,380 8,384 186 177 3,056 2,493

Table D-23 

Summary of the Predicted Threshold Radii (in Meters) for 180 and 160 dB SPL (rms) for Electromechanical 

Sources

Source: Boomer Side-Scan Sonar Chirp Subbottom 

Profiler

Multibeam Depth 

Sounder

dB SPL 180 160 180 160 180 160 180 160

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

22 43 43 1,737 1,490 192 180 604 534 32 28 808 682 -- -- -- --

23 39 38 1,060 818 128 116 512 440 38 35 380 303 27 25 147 142

24 43 42 1,956 1,444 186 176 602 532 32 28 874 772 -- -- -- --

25 38 36 1,566 1,342 138 116 532 455 37 35 376 317 27 25 147 142

26 43 41 1,712 1,428 190 176 600 530 32 28 764 664 -- -- -- --

27 40 40 1,054 807 128 116 500 438 37 35 359 297 27 25 147 142

28 41 40 1,860 1,468 177 156 655 528 33 29 971 876 -- -- -- --

29 39 38 1,129 799 133 125 650 499 42 37 854 677 27 25 156 149

30 43 41 1,730 1,435 171 154 576 510 33 29 831 644 -- -- -- --

31 40 39 1,155 840 129 115 537 462 42 39 557 313 27 25 147 140

32 45 43 2,138 1,552 178 156 600 539 33 29 962 811 -- -- -- --

33 39 38 1,655 898 132 119 567 492 42 39 684 363 27 25 147 140

34 43 43 1,844 1,467 175 159 592 526 32 29 724 634 -- -- -- --

35 40 38 1,035 669 134 121 538 458 42 38 401 300 27 25 149 144
Acoustic Modeling Report D-53

Table D-24 

Adjustment of the 180-dB and 160-dB Threshold Radii Based on the Difference between the Pulse Length of the 

Electromechanical Sources and the Minimum Integration Time of the Mammalian Hearing Apparatus (100 ms)

Source Pulse 

Length

Adjustment 

Value (dB)

Adjusted Radius (m) Operating Frequency 

within Cetacean 

Hearing Range?

180 dB

(Rmax)

160 dB

(Rmax)

Boomer 180 μs -27.3 <5 16 Yes (0.2–16 kHz)

Side-scan sonar 20 ms -7.0 65–96 337–450 Yes (100 kHz)

No (400 kHz)

Chirp subbottom profiler1 64 ms -1.9 26–35 240–689 Yes (3.5 kHz, 12 kHz)

No (200 kHz)

Multibeam depth sounder 225 μs -26.5 <5 12 No (240 kHz)

1 Recent source characterization fieldwork indicates modeled results to be conservative, that is, observed received levels were 

below model results (Zykov and MacDonnell, 2013). 

Adjustment for the minimum integration time is only applicable to the electromechanical sources for 

which pulse length is shorter than the specific minimum integration time. The modeling results for the 

airgun array sources are not subject to adjustment as the length of the acoustic pulse from such sources is 

usually greater than 100 ms, i.e., longer than the minimum integration time of the mammalian hearing 

apparatus.

The relatively small effect range for multibeam depth sounders is consistent with a recent analysis by 

Lurton and DeRuiter (2011) taking into account both the short pulse duration and high directivity of the 

source.

Operating frequency is another consideration in defining an appropriate safety zone. While airguns 

and boomers produce sounds within the hearing range of cetaceans, 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 cetacean hearing range but the 400 kHz operating 

frequency is not. For the chirp subbottom profiler, the 3.5 and 12 kHz frequencies are within the cetacean 

hearing range but the 200 kHz is not. Also, based on sea turtle hearing as reviewed in Appendix I, only 

airguns and boomers are likely to be within their hearing range.

The safety zone radii based on Southall et al. (2007) criteria were also estimated. The safety radii for 

all sources based on the peak pressure criteria are presented in Table D-25. The safety radii based on the 

sound exposure level criteria are presented in Table D-26 for the airgun array sources and in Table D-27

for the electromechanical sources. Only the cetaceans group was considered, as the abundance of 

pinnipeds inside the AOI is virtually nil (U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2007). 

Table D-25

Safety Zone Radii (in Meters) Based on Southall et al. (2007) Injury Criterion for the Maximum Peak Pressure. 

The Values Are Applicable to All Scenarios

Source Peak Level of Source

(dB re 1 μPa at 1 m)

Safety Zone Radii (m)

230 dB re 1 μPa (peak)

Airgun array 5,400 in3 247.7 7.7

Airgun array 90 in3 232.0 1.3

Boomer 215.0 01

Side-scan sonar 229.0 01

Subbottom profiler 228.2 01

Multibeam depth sounder 213.0 01

1 Source level is less than the criterion.
D-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table D-26

Safety Zone Radii (in Meters) for the Airgun Array Sources Based on Southall et al. (2007) Injury Criterion for the 

Sound Exposure Level (198 dB re 1 μPa2

 s). The Calculations Were Performed on the Modeled Sound Field after 

Application of the Relevant M-Weighting Filter

Source Airgun Array 5,400 in3 Airgun Array 90 in3

Frequency Low Med High Low Med High

Scenario 198 dB 198 dB 198 dB 198 dB 198 dB 198 dB

1 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

2 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

3 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

4 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

5 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

6 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

7 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

8 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

9 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

10 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

11 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

12 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

13 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

14 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

15 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

16 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

17 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

18 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

19 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

20 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

21 18 <5 <5 <5 – –

Table D-27 

Safety Zone Radii (in Meters) Based on Southall et al. (2007) Injury Criterion Based on the Sound Exposure Level 

(198 dB re 1 μPa2

·s). The Values Are Applicable to All Scenarios. The Effective Source Level (SLeff) Was 

Calculated Based on the Nominal Source Level and Relevant M-Weighting Filter

Cetaceans: Low-Frequency Mid-Frequency High-Frequency

Source SLeff

(dB re 1 μPa2·s)

198 dB

Radius (m)

SLeff

(dB re 1 μPa2·s)

198 dB

Radius (m)

SLeff

(dB re 1 μPa2·s)

198 dB

Radius (m)

Boomer 174.4 01 174.2 01 174.1 01

Side-scan sonar 179.3 01 203.3 2 203.9 2

Subbottom profiler 212.0 5 213.1 6 213.1 6

Multibeam depth sounder 131.9 01 163.3 01 164.6 01

1 Effective Source Level is less than the criterion.

The peak pressure decrease with distance was assessed based on the spherical spreading loss 

(see Section 2.2.1). The furthest calculated range for injury using the Southall peak pressure criterion 

was just 7.7 m from the loudest source (airgun array 5,400 in3

). This range is much less than the 

shallowest water depth out of all scenarios. This fact implies that the approach with spherical spreading 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-55

loss application to be valid. Also it indicates that the safety range calculation does not depend on the 

water depth and the same value is good for all scenarios.

The safety zone radii regarding sound exposure levels were calculated using the transmission loss 

modeling results and corresponding source level for each modeled source expressed in SEL units. Prior 

to the calculation of the safety zone radii, appropriate M-weighting filter was applied to the sound field to 

reflect different audiograms of different marine mammals groups.

The effect of M-weighting filters application is different for different sources as their frequency 

spectrum varies. The airgun array sources would see virtually no change in the safety zone radii for the 

low-frequency M-weighting filter application, as their dominant frequencies are at the lower end of the 

spectrum. Application of mid- and high-frequency M-weighting filters would reduce the effective source 

level of the airgun array sources, as the filter suppresses the low frequency content of the spectrum; 

hence, the reduction of the safety zone radii. The reverse situation is observed for electromechanical 

sources, whose spectrum is dominated by higher frequencies. The largest reduction in the effective 

source levels and safety zone radii would be achieved by application of the low-frequency M-weighting 

filter, and the mid- and high-frequency M-weighting filter would have smaller effect.

6. REFERENCES CITED

Applied Acoustic Engineering, Ltd. 2010a. CSP-D Seismic Energy Source (technical specification). 

Available at: www.appliedacoustics.com/sites/default/files/page-files/CSP-D.pdf. Accessed 

November 14, 2012.

Applied Acoustic Engineering, Ltd. 2010b. Delta Sparker (technical specification). Available at: 

http://www.appliedacoustics.com/sites/default/files/page-files/DeltaSparker.pdf. Accessed 

November 14, 2012.

Applied Acoustic Engineering, Ltd. 2010c. Squid 500, Squid 2000 & Delta Sparker Seismic Sound 

Source, Sparker Assemblies (technical specification). Available at: 

http://www.appliedacoustics.com/sites/default/files/page-files/Sparker%20Assemblies.pdf. Accessed 

November 14, 2012.

Applied Acoustic Engineering, Ltd. 2011. AA201 and AA301 seismic sound source, boomer plates. 

Technical specifications. 2 pp. Available at: http://appliedacoustics.com/sites/default/files/pagefiles/BoomerPlates.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2011.

Au, W.L. and M.C. Hastings. 2008. Hearing in marine animals. In: Principles of marine bioacoustics. 

New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 337-400.

Austin, M.E., A.O. MacGillivray, D.E. Hannay, and S.A. Carr. 2003. Acoustic monitoring of Marathon 

Canada Petroleum ULC 2003 Courland/Empire seismic program. Report prepared by JASCO 

Research Ltd. for Marathon Canada Petroleum ULC.

Bershad, S. and M. Weiss, eds. 1975. NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, Deck 41 surficial 

sediment database. Available at: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/deck41.html. Accessed 

September 29, 2011.

Blackwell, S.B., R.G. Norman, C.R. Greene Jr., and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Acoustic measurements. 

In: Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by Shell 

Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July–September 2006: 90-day report. LGL Rep. 

P891-1. Report from LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Greeneridge 

Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Shell Offshore Inc., Houston, TX, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. Pp. 4-1 to 4-52.

Brekhovskikh, L.M. and Y.P. Lysanov. 2003. Fundamentals of ocean acoustics. New York: 

Springer-Verlag.

Buckingham, M.J. 2005. Compressional and shear wave properties of marine sediments: Comparison 

between theory and data. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117:137–152.
D-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Clay, C.S. and H. Medwin. 1977. Acoustical oceanography: Principles and applications. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Collins, M.D., R.J. Cederberg, D.B. King, and S.A. Chin-Bing. 1996. Comparison of algorithms for 

solving parabolic wave equations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100(1):178-182.

Dragoset, W.H. 1984. A comprehensive method for evaluating the design of airguns and airgun arrays. 

16th Ann. Proc. Offshore Tech. Conf. 3: 75-84.

EdgeTech. 2011. 4200 Series side-scan sonar system. Product brochure. Available at: 

http://www.edgetech.com/docs/4200-Brochure-122012.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2011.

Federal Register. 2005. Endangered fish and wildlife; Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Department of Commerce January 11, 2005. 70 FR 7, pp. 1871-1875. Available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-01-11/pdf/05-525.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2011.

Fisher, F.H. and V.P. Simmons. 1977. Absorption of sound in sea water. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 

62:558-564.

Francois, R.E. and G.R. Garrison. 1982a. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part I: Pure 

water and magnesium sulfate contributions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 72(3):896–907.

Francois, R.E. and G.R. Garrison. 1982b. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part II: 

Boric acid contribution and equation for total absorption. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 72:1879-1890.

Funk, D.W., D. Hannay, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski, eds. 2008. Marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July–November 2007: 90-day report. LGL Rep. P969-1. Report from 

LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, LGL Ltd., and JASCO Research Ltd. for 

Shell Offshore Inc., Houston, TX, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

218 pp. + apps.

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. Noise Exposure Criteria Group, 

Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals, Plenary Meeting Two, Arlington 

VA, 28-30 April 2004, presentation. Available at: 

http://www.mmc.gov/sound/plenary2/pdf/gentryetal.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2011.

Greene, C.R., Jr. 1997. Physical acoustics measurements. In: Richardson, W.J., ed., Northstar marine 

mammal monitoring program, 1996: marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of a seismic program 

in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. LGL Rep. 2121-2. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and 

Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for BP Explor. (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, and 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. Pp. 3-1 to 3-63.

Hannay, D.E. and R.G. Racca. 2005. Acoustic model validation. Technical Report prepared by JASCO 

Research Ltd. for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. 35 pp. Available at: 

http://www.sakhalinenergy.com/en/documents/doc_33_jasco.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Hathaway, J.C. 1977. Continental margin program, Atlantic coast of the United States. NGDC Data Set 

G00253. Available at: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/conmar.html. Accessed 

September 28, 2011. 

International Transducer Corporation. 1993. Application equations for underwater sound transducers. 

Pamphlet. International Transducer Corporation, Santa Barbara, CA. 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-57

Ireland, D., D. Hannay, R. Rodrigues, H. Patterson, B. Haley, and A. Hunter. 2007. Marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by GX Technology in the Chukchi 

Sea, October–November 2006: 90-day report. LGL Draft Rep. P891-1. Rep. Silver Spring, MD: 

LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and JASCO 

Research, Ltd., Victoria, B.C., Canada, for GX Technology, Houston, TX, and National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

Johnson, C.S. 1968. Relation between absolute threshold and duration-of-tone pulses in the bottlenosed 

porpoise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 43(4): 757-763.

Kinsler, L.E., A.R. Frey, A.B. Coppens, and J.V. Sanders. 1950. Fundamentals of acoustics. NY: 

Wiley. 

Landro, M. 1992. Modeling of GI gun signatures. Geophys. Prospect. 40(7):721-747. 

Laughton, M.A. and D.F. Warne. 2003. Electrical engineer's reference book. Oxford, UK: Newnes.

Laws, M., L. Hatton, and M. Haartsen. 1990. Computer modeling of clustered airguns. First Break 

8(9):331–338.

LGL. 2010. Environmental assessment of a marine geophysical survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth

in the Pacific Ocean off Costa Rica, April–May 2011. Prepared for Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory and National Science Foundation Division of Ocean Sciences by LGL Ltd., 

Environmental Research Associates.

Lurton, X. 2002. An introduction to underwater acoustics: Principles and applications. Chichester, 

U.K.: Springer. 347 pp.

Lurton, X. and S. DeRuiter. 2011. Sound radiation of seafloor-mapping echosounders in the water 

column, in relation to the risks posed to marine mammals. In: The International Hydrographic 

Review No. 6, November 2011. Pp. 1-17. Available at: 

http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/IHReview/2011/IHR_Nov032011.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2012.

MacGillivray, A.O. 2006. An acoustic modeling study of seismic airgun noise in Queen Charlotte basin. 

MSc thesis, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.

MacGillivray, A.O., M.M. Zykov, and D.E. Hannay. 2007. Summary of noise assessment. In: Marine 

mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by ConocoPhillips Alaska, 

Inc. in the Chukchi Sea, July–October 2006. LGL Rep. P903-2. Report from LGL Alaska Res. 

Assoc. Inc., Anchorage, AK, and JASCO Res. Ltd., Victoria, B.C., for ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., 

Anchorage, AK, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. Pp. 3-1 to 3-21.

Malme, C.I., P.W. Smith, and P.R. Miles. 1986. Characterization of geophysical acoustic survey sounds. 

Prepared by BBN Laboratories Inc., Cambridge, for Battelle Memorial Institute to the Minerals 

Management Service, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Los Angeles, CA.

Massa, D.P. 1999. Choosing and ultrasonic sensor for proximity or distance measurement; Part 2: 

Optimizing sensor selection. Sensors, March 1, 1999. Available at: 

http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/acoustic-ultrasound/choosing-ultrasonic-sensor-proximity-ordistance-measurement-838. Accessed September 28, 2011. 

McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of 

observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA J. 38:692-707.

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. 2000. Marine seismic surveys–a study of environmental 

implications. APPEA J. 40:692-708. 

Medwin, H. 2005. Sounds in the sea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
D-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Nedwell, J.R. and A.W.H. Turnpenny. 1998. The use of a generic frequency weighting scale in 

estimating environmental effect. Proceedings of Workshop on Seismics and Marine Mammals. 

June 1998, London, UK.

Poppe, L.J., J.S. Schlee, B. Butman, and C.M. Lane. 1989. Map showing distribution of surficial 

sediment, Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Invest. Ser., Map I-1986-A; scale 1:1,000,000.

Porter, M. and Y.C. Liu. 1994. Finite-element ray tracing. In: Lee, D. and M.H. Schultz, Theoretical 

and Computational Acoustics, Volume II. Pp. 947-956.

Racca, R.G. and J.A. Scrimger. 1986. Underwater acoustic source characteristics of air and water guns. 

Contractor report by JASCO Res. Ltd., Victoria, B.C, for DREP, Esquimalt, B.C. Contract No. 06SB 

97708-5-7055.

RESON. 2009. SeaBat 7101 operator’s manual. Document No. OM11674-1F (preliminary). 141 pp.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. 

San Diego: Academic Press. 576 pp.

Shipboard Scientific Party. 1994. Site 905. In: Mountain, G.S., K.G. Miller, P. Blum, P.-G. Aim, 

M.-P. Aubry, L.H. Burckle, B.A. Christensen, J. Compton, J.E. Damuth, J.-F. Deconinck, L. de 

Verteuil, C.S. Fulthorpe, S. Gartner, G. Guèrin, S.P. Hesselbo, B. Hoppie, M.E. Katz, N. Kotake, 

J.M. Lorenzo, S. McCracken, C.M. McHugh, W.C. Quayle, Y. Saito, S.W. Snyder, W.G. ten Kate, 

M. Urbat, M.C. Van Fossen, and A. Vecsei. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial 

Reports 150:255–308. College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program). Available at: 

doi:10.2973/odp.proc.ir.150.109.1994. Accessed September 28, 2011.

Shipboard Scientific Party. 1998. Site 1071. In: Austin, J.A., Jr., N. Christie-Blick, M.J. Malone, 

S. Berné, M.K. Borre, G. Claypool, J. Damuth, H. Delius, G. Dickens, P. Flemings, C. Fulthorpe, 

S. Hesselbo, K. Hoyanagi, M. Katz, H. Krawinkel, C. Major, F. McCarthy, C. McHugh, G. Mountain, 

H. Oda, H. Olson, C. Pirmez, C. Savrda, C. Smart, L. Sohl, P. Vanderaveroet, W. Wei, and B. 

Whiting , Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initials Reports 174A: 37–97. College Station, 

TX (Ocean Drilling Program). Available at: doi:10.2973/odp.proc.ir.174a.103.1998. Accessed 

September 28, 2011.

Simpkin, P.G. 2005. The boomer sound source as a tool for shallow water geophysical exploration. 

Marine Geophys. Res. 26:171-181.

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. Available at: http://sea-inc.net/assets/pdf/mmnoise_aquaticmammals.pdf. Accessed 

September 6, 2011.

Teague, W.J., M.J. Carron, and P.J. Hogan. 1990. A comparison between the Generalized Digital 

Environmental Model and Levitus climatologies. J. Geophys. Res. 95(C5):7167–7183.

Teledyne Odom Hydrographic, Inc. 2011. The Teledyne Odom Hydrographic Family of Single Beam 

Echo Sounders. Available at: 

http://www.odomhydrographic.com/media/user/file/Transducer%20Selector.pdf. Accessed 

November 20, 2012.

Thorp, W.H. 1965. Deep-ocean sound attenuation in the sub- and low-kilocycle-per-second region. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 38:648–654.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2007. Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE) for the Southeast OPAREAS: 

VACAPES, CHPT, JAX/CHASN, and Southeastern Florida & AUTEC-ANDROS Dept. of the Navy, 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic: Norfolk, VA. Contract N62470-02-D-9997, 

Task Order 0060. Prepared by GeoMarine Inc., August 2007. 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-59

Verbeek, N.H. and T.M. McGee. 1995. Characteristics of high-resolution marine reflection profiling 

sources. J. Appl. Geophys. 33:251-269.

Ziolkowski, A. 1970. A method for calculating the output pressure waveform from an air gun. Geophys. 

J. R. Astr. Soc. 21:137–161.

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 2.0. Technical 

report by JASCO Applied Sciences for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management.
D-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

ATTACHMENT A: COMMENTS ON THE BOOMER SOURCE LEVELS

The modeling of the boomer source conducted for this report was primarily based on the theoretical 

calculations and laboratory experimental findings presented by Simpkin (2005). The modeling work 

commenced in May 2011 and concluded by December 2011. However, in the summer of 2012, JASCO 

performed field measurements on a boomer source that provided additional data on the source levels of a 

boomer system. 

RECENT FINDINGS (SUBSEQUENT TO 2011)

JASCO performed a sound source verification study on an AP3000 boomer system (Martin et al.,

2012) with a double-plate configuration operating at maximum input energy of 1000 J. During the study, 

the acoustic data were collected as close as 8 m to the source and directly below it. The measurements 

were performed at a 10 m depth. 

The data showed that the broad band source level for the system was 203.3 dB 1 μPa @ 1 m rms SPL 

over 0.2 ms window length and 172.6 dB re 1 μPa2

·s @ 1 m SEL over 55 ms window length. The field 

data also revealed that even at 10 m from the source, the T90 is significantly longer than 0.2 ms: for 

distances from 8 to 20 m from the source the T90 varied from 6 ms to 10 ms, and for distances more than 

20 m the T90 was greater than 10 ms.

It is believed that the source level values of 212 dB re μPa at 1 m, as provided in the specifications 

sheet by the manufacturer of the AA201 representative system (Applied Acoustic Engineering, Ltd., 

2011), significantly overestimate the actual source levels achieved in the field environment.

JASCO suggests updating the values in Table D-6 according to the recent findings. 

Table Attachment A-1 presents corrected pulse specifications values for the representative boomer 

system (AA201 200 J power input) derived from the measured values for AP3000 (1,000 J power input) 

by scaling down according to the difference in the power input (-7 dB). 

Table Attachment A-1 

Pulse Specifications for Boomer AP3000 Double Plate System (1000 J Power Input) and Corrected Pulse 

Specifications for Boomer AA201 System (200 J Power Input) 

Parameter AP3000 Double-Plate AA201 Single-Plate

Operational Frequency Range Broad Band: 200 Hz to 16 kHz Broad Band: 200 Hz to 16 kHz

Beam Widths (degrees) omnidirectional –8° omnidirectional -8°

Energy Input (per shot) 1,000 J 200 J

Maximum Power Input 3,000 W 600 W

rms SPL (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) T = 0.2 ms 204 197 (corrected from 212)

Peak Level (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) 210 203 (corrected from 215)

SEL (dB re 1 μPa2·s at 1 m) 173 166 (corrected from 174.6)

IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOURCE LEVEL VALUES CHANGE FOR THE 

REPRESENTATIVE BOOMER SYSTEM

According to Table Attachment A-1, the effective source level values for the AA201 boomer system 

were significantly reduced. In case of the source level in the rms SPL metric, the reduction is 15 dB. The 

reduction can be potentially even greater if the increased pulse length of several milliseconds is taken into 

account.

With the source level reduced, the threshold radii presented in Table Attachment C-3 and 

Table D-23 would need to be adjusted as well. The threshold radii presented in Table Attachment C-3

and Table D-23 were calculated assuming the source level for the boomer system of 212 dB re 1 μPa at 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-61

1 m. Table Attachment A-2 provides predicted ranges to the specific threshold levels assuming the 

source level for the boomer system of 197 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m for the boomer system.

Table Attachment A-2 

Predicted Ranges (in Meters) to Specified Threshold Levels for Boomer Source. 

No Adjustment for Pulse Duration Has Been Applied

rms dB 200 190 180 170 160 150

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

22 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 22 22 127 121 817 691

23 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 21 21 74 72 405 375

24 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 22 22 126 120 753 688

25 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 21 21 74 71 405 382

26 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 22 22 128 123 750 668

27 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 21 21 76 73 420 374

28 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 22 22 120 117 655 616

29 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 21 21 75 72 410 367

30 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 22 22 125 119 866 585

31 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 21 21 76 73 425 376

32 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 22 22 119 116 871 653

33 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 21 21 75 72 419 376

34 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 22 22 119 116 775 611

35 - - < 5 < 5 5 5 21 21 75 72 385 258

REFERENCES

Applied Acoustic Engineering, Ltd. 2011. AA201 and AA301 seismic sound source, boomer plates. 

Technical specifications. 2 pp. Available at: http://appliedacoustics.com/sites/default/files/pagefiles/BoomerPlates.pdf. Accessed September 29, 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 

Pre-Construction High Resolution Geophysical Survey. For Cape Wind Associates, LLC. Available 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/capewind_iha_application_renewal.pdf. Accessed 

October 23, 2013. 

Simpkin, P.G. 2005. The boomer sound source as a tool for shallow water geophysical exploration. 

Marine Geophys. Res. 26:171-181.
D-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

ATTACHMENT B: SOUND MAPS

Sound field maps for each of the planned model sites that present the maximum SPL (rms) at each 

horizontal distance from the source irrespective of the depth at which the maximum occurred were 

prepared. These SPL (rms) values are the maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) sound exposure 

levels (SEL) around a source. This presentation of sound field modeling results permits an overview 

comparison of the modeled sound field condition at each model site for the various sound sources as well 

as the model results for specific sound sources for sites with different bathymetry and other factors 

affection sound propagation. However, these are not in the form of the sound field model results that 

were used for take estimation. Locations of the sites are shown in Figure D-35 of Section 4.2.1. The 

maps are grouped by scenario (see Table D-20), i.e. various sources at the same geographic location 

(site), bottom type, and same sound velocity profile. Approximate SPL (rms), in dB re 1 μPa, is shown in 

all cases. The modeling results do not account for the specific properties of the mammalian hearing such 

as hearing integration time. Actual acoustic pulse duration was used to estimate the presented 

sound fields. 

Figure Attachment B-1. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 1 (Water Depth is 5,390 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-63

Figure Attachment B-2. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) sound exposure levels (SEL) around the 

source for Modeling Scenario 2 (Water Depth is 2,560 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3

 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-3. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 3 (Water Depth is 880 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3

 Airgun Arrays.
D-64 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-4. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 4 (Water Depth is 249 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3

 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-5. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 5 (Water Depth is 288 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-65

Figure Attachment B-6. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 6 (Water Depth is 5,390 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-7. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 7 (Water Depth is 3,200 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
D-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-8. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 8 (Water Depth is 880 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-9. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 9 (Water Depth is 251 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-67

Figure Attachment B-10. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 10 (Water Depth is 249 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-11. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 11 (Water Depth is 5,390 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
D-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-12. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 12 (Water Depth is 3,200 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-13. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 13 (Water Depth is 880 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-69

Figure Attachment B-14. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 14 (Water Depth is 275 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-15. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 15 (Water Depth is 4,300 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
D-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-16. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 16 (Water Depth is 3,010 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-17. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 17 (Water Depth is 4,890 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.

3 Airgun Arrays.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-71

Figure Attachment B-18. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 18 (Water Depth is 3,580 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-19. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 19 (Water Depth is 880 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
D-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-20. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 20 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.

Figure Attachment B-21. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 21 (Water Depth is 51 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) 5,400 in.3 and (b) 90 in.3 Airgun Arrays.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-73

Figure Attachment B-22. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 22 (Water Depth is 30 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, and (c) Side-scan Sonar.
D-74 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-23. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 23 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, (c) Side-scan Sonar, and (d) Multibeam Depth 

Sounder. 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-75

Figure Attachment B-24. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 24 (Water Depth is 30 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, and (c) Side-scan Sonar.
D-76 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-25. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 25 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, (c) Side-scan Sonar, and (d) Multibeam Depth 

Sounder.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-77

Figure Attachment B-26. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 26 (Water Depth is 30 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, and (c) Side-scan Sonar.
D-78 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-27. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 27 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, (c) Side-scan Sonar, and (d) Multibeam Depth 

Sounder.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-79

Figure Attachment B-28. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 28 (Water Depth is 30 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, and (c) Side-scan Sonar.
D-80 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-29. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 29 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, (c) Side-scan Sonar, and (d) Multibeam Depth 

Sounder.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-81

Figure Attachment B-30. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 30 (Water Depth is 30 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, and (c) Side-scan Sonar.
D-82 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-31. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 31 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, (c) Side-scan Sonar, and (d) Multibeam Depth 

Sounder.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-83

Figure Attachment B-32. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 32 (Water Depth is 30 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, and (c) Side-scan Sonar.
D-84 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-33. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 33 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, (c) Side-scan Sonar, and (d) Multibeam Depth 

Sounder.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-85

Figure Attachment B-34. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 34 (Water Depth is 30 m at the Source). The Sources are

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, and (c) Side-scan Sonar.
D-86 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure Attachment B-35. Maximum-over-depth broadband (10-2,000 Hz) SPL (rms) around the source for 

Modeling Scenario 35 (Water Depth is 100 m at the Source). The Sources are 

(a) Subbottom Profiler, (b) Boomer, (c) Side-scan Sonar, and (d) Multibeam Depth 

Sounder.
Acoustic Modeling Report D-87

ATTACHMENT C: PREDICTED RANGES TO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD 

LEVELS

Table Attachment C-1 

Predicted Ranges (in Meters) to Specified Threshold Levels for 5,400 in3 Airgun Array Source

rms dB 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

1 29 29 90 87 278 270 835 810 2,297 2,213 5,379 4,969 8,730 8,107 

2 29 29 92 89 284 273 876 827 2,557 2,358 5,720 5,184 19,735 16,479 

3 30 30 91 89 292 280 1,557 1,093 3,753 3,445 9,329 8,104 >20,000 19,489 

4 16 16 46 46 151 145 822 748 3,406 2,793 12,737 8,725 >20,000 19,338 

5 16 16 47 45 166 153 816 742 3,635 2,709 13,337 8,896 >20,000 19,265 

6 29 29 90 87 278 270 837 811 2,298 2,215 5,379 4,989 8,740 8,146 

7 29 29 90 87 285 276 855 829 2,422 2,300 5,322 5,026 19,950 18,775 

8 30 30 91 89 292 280 1,556 1,091 3,748 3,452 9,654 8,056 >20,000 19,489 

9 16 16 46 46 154 148 801 737 3,305 2,787 11,056 8,593 >20,000 19,327 

10 16 16 45 43 152 146 799 752 3,361 2,704 11,695 8,615 >20,000 18,989 

11 29 29 89 86 277 269 837 811 2,296 2,212 5,379 4,973 8,320 7,883 

12 29 29 89 87 283 275 853 827 2,420 2,291 5,320 5,013 >20,000 19,758 

13 30 29 90 88 292 280 1,552 1,082 3,737 3,151 9,316 8,095 >20,000 19,489 

14 16 16 45 43 157 150 880 761 3,253 2,648 15,305 9,122 >20,000 19,387 

15 30 29 91 89 280 273 841 816 2,365 2,262 5,490 5,121 8,846 8,394 

16 30 29 90 87 285 277 871 846 2,456 2,339 5,360 5,098 19,852 16,233 

17 29 29 90 88 279 271 838 812 2,281 2,212 5,184 4,959 8,590 8,235 

18 30 29 90 87 278 270 845 819 2,362 2,267 5,450 5,069 8,912 8,384 

19 30 30 91 89 292 280 1,559 1,094 3,754 3,497 9,304 8,083 >20,000 19,489 

20 16 16 49 47 292 275 1,134 992 4,127 3,282 12,022 8,531 >20,000 19,151 

21 21 21 92 87 460 434 2,109 1,677 5,257 4,441 11,380 8,384 >20,000 18,421 
D-88 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table Attachment C-2 

Predicted Ranges (in Meters) to Specified Threshold Levels for 90 in3 Airgun Array Source

rms dB 200 190 180 170 160 150 

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

1 16 16 46 46 148 144 450 437 1,295 1,256 3,412 3,205 

2 16 16 46 46 148 143 458 441 1,363 1,291 3,719 3,355 

3 16 16 47 47 148 145 486 460 2,210 2,038 5,537 4,786 

4 7 7 22 22 76 75 325 293 1,452 1,342 4,990 4,154 

5 7 7 22 22 76 74 395 328 1,568 1,286 5,324 3,927 

6 16 16 46 46 148 144 450 437 1,295 1,256 3,412 3,202 

7 16 16 46 46 146 142 453 439 1,322 1,281 3,565 3,302 

8 16 16 47 47 148 145 483 459 2,212 2,039 5,516 4,810 

9 7 7 22 22 76 74 332 306 1,464 1,331 4,910 4,374 

10 7 7 25 25 76 75 310 291 1,512 1,108 5,189 4,126 

11 16 16 46 46 146 143 448 435 1,295 1,255 3,412 3,203 

12 16 16 46 46 146 141 450 437 1,321 1,280 3,425 3,307 

13 16 16 47 46 147 143 482 458 2,211 2,036 5,197 4,623 

14 7 7 25 25 76 74 336 308 1,371 1,100 5,456 3,947 

15 16 16 47 46 146 143 450 436 1,315 1,258 3,403 3,284 

16 16 16 46 46 149 145 455 442 1,325 1,285 3,529 3,404 

17 16 16 46 46 149 145 455 442 1,294 1,255 3,351 3,194 

18 16 16 46 46 148 145 456 443 1,329 1,289 3,510 3,294 

19 16 16 47 47 149 145 483 459 2,212 2,040 5,518 4,859 

20 7 7 25 25 90 86 371 341 2,051 1,681 5,181 4,356 

21 11 11 35 35 186 177 852 755 3,056 2,493 6,464 5,888 
Acoustic Modeling Report D-89

Table Attachment C-3 

Predicted Ranges (in Meters) to Specified Threshold Levels for Boomer Source. 

No Adjustment for Pulse Duration Has Been Applied

rms dB 200 190 180 170 160 150 

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

22 <5 <5 7 7 43 43 386 336 1,737 1,490 8,243 6,088 

23 <5 <5 7 7 39 38 140 135 1,060 818 6,655 4,757 

24 <5 <5 7 7 43 42 364 299 1,956 1,444 6,280 5,056 

25 <5 <5 7 7 38 36 142 132 1,566 1,342 7,820 4,792 

26 <5 <5 7 7 43 41 386 317 1,712 1,428 7,293 5,752 

27 <5 <5 7 7 40 40 141 135 1,054 807 6,003 4,519 

28 <5 <5 7 7 41 40 259 252 1,860 1,468 8,202 6,252 

29 <5 <5 7 7 39 38 144 137 1,129 799 6,484 4,805 

30 <5 <5 7 7 43 41 315 310 1,730 1,435 6,776 5,563 

31 <5 <5 10 10 40 39 146 137 1,155 840 6,480 4,550 

32 <5 <5 7 7 45 43 377 318 2,138 1,552 7,802 6,287 

33 <5 <5 7 7 39 38 148 142 1,655 898 7,089 5,046 

34 <5 <5 7 7 43 43 376 313 1,844 1,467 7,755 6,011 

35 <5 <5 7 7 40 38 143 137 1,035 669 6,085 4,339 

Table Attachment C-4 

Predicted Ranges (in Meters) to Specified Threshold Levels for Side-scan Sonar Source. 

No Adjustment for Pulse Duration Has Been Applied

rms dB 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

22 <5 <5 18 16 70 66 192 180 376 334 604 534 856 732 

23 <5 <5 12 8 47 36 128 116 280 250 512 440 760 650 

24 <5 <5 18 16 70 66 186 176 376 336 602 532 864 752 

25 <5 <5 12 8 47 36 138 116 290 256 532 455 812 715 

26 <5 <5 18 16 70 66 190 176 374 330 600 530 852 728 

27 <5 <5 12 8 47 36 128 116 280 246 500 438 770 651 

28 <5 <5 14 12 50 47 177 156 379 345 655 528 919 791 

29 <5 <5 14 12 50 47 133 125 348 330 650 499 867 774 

30 <5 <5 13 9 49 42 171 154 356 319 576 510 850 737 

31 <5 <5 13 9 49 39 129 115 286 247 537 462 816 702 

32 <5 <5 13 9 49 42 178 156 366 323 600 539 903 745 

33 <5 <5 13 9 49 39 132 119 293 256 567 492 806 697 

34 <5 <5 13 9 53 40 175 159 362 324 592 526 836 719 

35 <5 <5 13 9 47 30 134 121 281 249 538 458 768 655 
D-90 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table Attachment C-5 

Predicted Ranges (in Meters) to Specified Threshold Levels for Chirp Subbottom Profiler. 

No Adjustment for Pulse Duration Has Been Applied

rms dB 200 190 180 170 160 150 

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

22 <5 <5 12 12 32 28 136 110 808 682 2,863 2,325 

23 <5 <5 13 13 38 35 106 90 380 303 2,456 1,781 

24 <5 <5 12 12 32 28 138 112 874 772 2,908 2,379 

25 <5 <5 13 13 37 35 108 90 376 317 2,855 2,357 

26 <5 <5 12 12 32 28 128 107 764 664 2,839 2,275 

27 <5 <5 13 13 37 35 106 90 359 297 2,480 1,741 

28 <5 <5 13 12 33 29 122 102 971 876 3,222 2,857 

29 <5 <5 13 13 42 37 110 91 854 677 3,189 2,704 

30 <5 <5 13 12 33 29 122 103 831 644 2,680 2,199 

31 <5 <5 13 13 42 39 112 91 557 313 2,324 1,969 

32 <5 <5 13 12 33 29 125 104 962 811 3,494 2,519 

33 <5 <5 13 13 42 39 112 92 684 363 2,889 2,446 

34 <5 <5 13 12 32 29 123 104 724 634 2,869 2,590 

35 <5 <5 13 13 42 38 108 90 401 300 2,766 2,086 

Table Attachment C-6 

Predicted Ranges (in Meters) to Specified Threshold Levels for Multibeam Depth Sounder. 

No Adjustment for Pulse Duration Has Been Applied

rms, dB 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 

Scenario Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95% Rmax R95%

23 0 0 <5 <5 10 10 27 25 61 57 147 142 320 275 

25 0 0 <5 <5 10 10 27 25 61 57 147 142 320 275 

27 0 0 <5 <5 10 10 27 25 61 57 147 142 315 269 

29 0 0 <5 <5 10 10 27 25 55 51 156 149 359 337 

31 0 0 <5 <5 10 10 27 25 61 57 147 140 294 262 

33 0 0 <5 <5 10 10 27 25 61 57 147 140 305 273 

35 0 0 <5 <5 10 10 27 25 59 55 149 144 293 266 
APPENDIX E 

ACOUSTIC MODELING AND MARINE MAMMAL INCIDENTAL 

TAKE METHODOLOGY, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS

Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW............................................................................................. E-1

2. ACOUSTIC MODELING APPROACH .......................................................................................... E-3

2.1. Propagation Modeling.............................................................................................................. E-4

2.1.1. Overall Modeling Assumptions ................................................................................... E-4

2.1.2. Acoustic Propagation Model Selection ........................................................................ E-4

2.2. Overall Modeling Approach .................................................................................................... E-4

3. ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS............................................................................................................ E-5

3.1. Historical and Proposed Current Criteria................................................................................. E-5

3.1.1. Injury Criteria............................................................................................................... E-5

3.1.2. Behavioral Disturbance Criteria................................................................................... E-7

4. ACOUSTIC SOURCE MODELING................................................................................................ E-8

5. AREA ACOUSTIC PROPAGATION CHARACTERIZATION .................................................... E-8

5.1. General Characterization of All Operational Areas................................................................. E-8

5.1.1. Propagation .................................................................................................................. E-8

5.1.1.1. Winter......................................................................................................... E-11

5.1.1.2. Spring ......................................................................................................... E-12

5.1.1.3. Summer....................................................................................................... E-13

5.1.1.4. Fall.............................................................................................................. E-14

5.1.2. Bottom Loss............................................................................................................... E-16

5.1.3. General Characterization Summary ........................................................................... E-18

5.2. Shallow Water Modeling for Marine Minerals and Renewable Energy................................ E-25

6. MARINE MAMMAL ABUNDANCES AND DENSITIES .......................................................... E-26

7. IMPACT MODELING APPROACHES ........................................................................................ E-30

7.1. AIM Modeling and Methodology.......................................................................................... E-30

7.2. AIM Modeling of the Source Movement............................................................................... E-31

7.3. AIM Modeling of the Animal Movement.............................................................................. E-32

7.3.1. Movement .................................................................................................................. E-32

7.3.2. Heading Variance....................................................................................................... E-33

7.3.3. Aversions.................................................................................................................... E-33

7.3.4. Species Behavior Parameters..................................................................................... E-33

7.3.4.1. Minke Whale .............................................................................................. E-34

7.3.4.2. Sei/Bryde’s Whale...................................................................................... E-35

7.3.4.3. Blue Whale ................................................................................................. E-36

7.3.4.4. Fin Whale ................................................................................................... E-37

7.3.4.5. North Atlantic Right Whale........................................................................ E-38

7.3.4.6. Humpback Whale (Feeding)....................................................................... E-39

7.3.4.7. Humpback Whale (Winter Grounds: Singer) ............................................. E-40

7.3.4.8. Humpback Whale (Migrating).................................................................... E-41

7.3.4.9. Common Dolphin ....................................................................................... E-42

7.3.4.10. Blackfish: False Killer Whale, Pygmy Killer Whale, Melon-headed 

Whale.......................................................................................................... E-42

7.3.4.11. Shortfin and Longfin Pilot Whales............................................................. E-43

7.3.4.12. Risso’s Dolphin .......................................................................................... E-44

7.3.4.13. Large Beaked Whales................................................................................. E-45

7.3.4.14. Dwarf and Pygmy Sperm Whales (Kogia spp.).......................................... E-46
E-iv Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Page

7.3.4.15. Lagenorhynchus Species ............................................................................ E-47

7.3.4.16. Fraser’s Dolphin ......................................................................................... E-48

7.3.4.17. Small Beaked Whales (Mesoplodon, Ziphius, Tasmacetus) ....................... E-49

7.3.4.18. Killer Whale ............................................................................................... E-50

7.3.4.19. Harbor Porpoise.......................................................................................... E-51

7.3.4.20. Sperm Whale .............................................................................................. E-52

7.3.4.21. Stenella: Spinner, Spotted, and Striped Dolphins...................................... E-54

7.3.4.22. Bottlenose Dolphin..................................................................................... E-55

7.4. Estimations of Source Level of Effort ................................................................................... E-56

7.4.1. Annual Survey Levels of Effort (LOE)...................................................................... E-57

7.4.2. Spatial Distribution of the 2D Survey Effort .............................................................. E-57

7.4.3. Correction to Level of Effort (LOE) Tables to Account for Time-Area Closures..... E-59

7.5. AIM Results and Adjustments............................................................................................... E-63

7.5.1. Modeling Results........................................................................................................ E-65

7.5.2. Discussion of the Uncertainty of the Modeling Effort............................................... E-70

8. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................... E-72

ATTACHMENT: SUMMARY TABLES OF TOTAL ANNUAL TAKE ESTIMATES..................... E-83
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-v 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure E-1. Area of Interest (black line) Plotted over Bathymetry from the Digital Bathymetric 

Data Base Variable Resolution Database (depth in feet). ................................................... E-8

Figure E-2. Provinced Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) Areas within the 

Area of Interest (black line). ............................................................................................... E-9

Figure E-3. Example of Surface Layer Trapped Acoustic Energy....................................................... E-10

Figure E-4. Example of the Convergence Zone Propagation............................................................... E-11

Figure E-5. Winter Propagation Characteristics of the Area of Interest (black line). .......................... E-12

Figure E-6. Spring Propagation Characteristics of the Area of Interest (black line)............................ E-13

Figure E-7. Summer Propagation Characteristics of the Area of Interest (black line)......................... E-14

Figure E-8. Fall Propagation Characteristics of the Area of Interest (black line)................................ E-15

Figure E-9. Grain Size Index for the Area of Interest. ......................................................................... E-18

Figure E-10. Rayleigh Bottom Loss Estimates for Grain Size Index 7, 1, and -1. ................................ E-18

Figure E-11. Final Modeling Regions for the Winter. ........................................................................... E-21

Figure E-12. Final Modeling Regions for the Spring............................................................................. E-22

Figure E-13. Final Modeling Regions for the Summer.......................................................................... E-23

Figure E-14. Final Modeling Regions for the Fall. ................................................................................ E-24

Figure E-15. Density Plot for Atlantic Spotted Dolphin for Fall Based on the Navy Operating 

Area Density Estimate Database....................................................................................... E-28

Figure E-16. Typical Dive Pattern. ........................................................................................................ E-32

Figure E-17. Parameters Used to Specify the Typical Dive Pattern Shown in Figure E-16.................. E-33

Figure E-18. Example Showing the Aversions to Limit an Animat to Waters between 2,000 and 

5,000 m (6,562 and 16,404 ft)........................................................................................... E-33

Figure E-19. Level of Effort Density Plot for Future 2D Seismic Airgun Surveys Based on 

Overlay of Seismic Survey Applications Submitted to BOEM. ....................................... E-58

Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table E-1. Historical Injury and Behavioral Disturbance Criteria for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds 

for Airgun Signals, as Recognized and Used by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service................................................................................................................................. E-5

Table E-2. Injury and Behavioral Disturbance Exposure Criteria for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds, 

as proposed by Southall et al. (2007).................................................................................. E-6

Table E-3. Month Used to Represent Each Season in Sound Speed Database Extraction ................... E-9

Table E-4. Grain Size Index for Sediment Type................................................................................. E-17

Table E-5. Summary of Propagation and Bottom Loss Characterization in the Area of Interest....... E-19

Table E-6. Summary Table of the Sound Velocity Profiles Used in the Characterization of the 

Area................................................................................................................................... E-20

Table E-7. Summary of Details of the Sites Identified in the Shallow Water Characterization......... E-26

Table E-8. Marine Mammal Densities for the 21 Modeling Regions (animals/nmi2

) ........................ E-29

Table E-9. Seismic Airgun Source Vessel Parameters for AIM Simulations..................................... E-32

Table E-10. Marine Mineral and Renewable Resource Source Vessel Parameters for AIM 

Simulations ....................................................................................................................... E-32

Table E-11. Projected Levels of Seismic Airgun Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration in the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 2012-2020....................................................... E-57

Table E-12. Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for 2D Seismic Airgun Surveys................................ E-60

Table E-13. Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for 3D Seismic Airgun Surveys................................ E-60

Table E-14. Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for WAZ Seismic Airgun Surveys............................ E-61

Table E-15. Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for VSP Seismic Airgun Surveys ............................. E-61

Table E-16. Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for 90 Cubic Inch Airgun HRG Surveys for Oil 

and Gas Sites..................................................................................................................... E-62

Table E-17. Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for Non-Airgun HRG Surveys for Marine 

Minerals Sites.................................................................................................................... E-62

Table E-18. Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for Non-Airgun HRG Surveys for Renewable 

Energy Sites...................................................................................................................... E-63

Table E-19. Potential Level A Takes (number of individuals) for One Block of 2D Seismic 

Airgun Survey Effort, Based on the Southall et al. (2007) Injury Criteria ...................... E-66

Table E-20. Potential Level A Takes (number of individuals) for One Block of 2D Seismic 

Airgun Survey Effort, Based on the Historic NMFS Criterion (180 dB).......................... E-67

Table E-21. Potential Level B Takes (number of individuals) for One Block of 2D Seismic 

Airgun Survey Effort, Based on the Historic NMFS Criterion (160 dB)......................... E-68

Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

μPa micropascal

2D two-dimensional

3D three-dimensional

4D four-dimensional

AIM Acoustic Integration Model© 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute

AOI Area of Interest

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management

CIE Center for Independent Experts

CZ convergence zone

dB decibel

DTAG digital acoustic recording tag

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ft feet

G&G geological and geophysical

GDEM Generalized Digital Environmental 

Model

GDEM_V Generalized Digital Environmental 

Model Variable Resolution

GIS geographic information system

hr hour

HRG high-resolution geophysical

Hz hertz

ITA incidental take authorization

JASCO JASCO Applied Sciences

kHz kilohertz

km kilometer

LFA low-frequency active

LOE level of effort

m meter

min minute

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MONM Marine Operations Noise Model

NGDC National Geophysical Data Center

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

nmi nautical mile

NODE Navy Operating Area Density 

Estimates

NRC National Research Council

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OPAREA operating area

Pa pascal

PTS permanent threshold shift

rms root-mean-square

s second

SD standard deviation

SE standard error

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center

SEL sound exposure level

SL source level

SoundMap Underwater Sound Field Working 

Group

SPL sound pressure level

SURTASS Surveillance Towed Array Sensor 

System

SVP sound velocity profile

TDR time-depth recorder

TL transmission loss

TTS temporary threshold shift

VSP vertical seismic profile

WAZ wide azimuth

Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-1 

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

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

Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of geological and geophysical 

(G&G) activities on the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and adjacent State 

waters. The purpose of this appendix is to explain the methodology that was used to calculate incidental 

takes of marine mammals for the Programmatic EIS. This appendix documents the overall approach and 

identifies the specific models, acoustic sources, and modeling techniques that were used, as well as the 

operational, environmental, and biological data that were needed to support the modeling. Some of the 

details of this analysis are specific to the work performed by JASCO as part of their acoustic source and 

acoustic propagation loss modeling; in those instances, this appendix refers to Appendix D, which covers 

those details.

The term “incidental take” derives from Section 101(a)(5) (A-D) of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)), which provides a mechanism for allowing, 

upon request, the incidental, but 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. Under the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, harassment is statutorily defined 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 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).

Accurate predictive modeling of potential acoustic impacts requires knowledge of (1) the specific 

source(s) that would be used at each site of survey operations; (2) the exact environmental acoustic 

conditions present at each site; (3) the timing and type of each survey; and (4) the marine animals present 

at each site. Because these facts could not be known ahead of time (without extensive surveys 

immediately prior to or during the survey) and particularly not for the period of this document 

(i.e., through the year 2020), the following analytical estimation is necessary. The reasonable approach

described in this report, in general, examines the potential range of each variable and identifies typical 

values expected to be used during the proposed action.

There are many instances where the numerous permutations needed to capture the effects of the range 

of values for a variable may be able to be reduced because of minimal effects on the results, or because 

the low occurrence of some of the values in the range allows an obvious selection for modeling. For 

example, nearly all of the deepwater sites have very fine silts, clayey silt, and clay as the predominant 

bottom types, and the use of clay characteristics in the acoustic propagation modeling for all of these deep 

sites is adequate, because the bottom properties of the other sediments would be similar. Similarly, in the 

case of the airgun source used for modeling, there are numerous possible source arrays that could be used 

based on the company performing the survey, the location, the ships available, etc. In this case, a nominal 

source identified by the BOEM as a typical source for these surveys was used in the modeling. Although 

it is not necessarily the strongest source identified, it better represents a typical source array and its 

potential impacts. It is estimated that the percentage of time that strong and weak sources are used over 

the duration of the proposed action would only slightly change the overall estimated impacts and, over 

time, tend to average out to an impact similar to that predicted for the modeled array. As can be seen in 

Appendix D, the 5,400 cubic in airgun is conservatively used for all survey types (e.g., a 

two-dimensional [2D] survey might be expected to typically use a smaller and less powerful source), with 

the source level only being corrected for the water depth and M-weighting. 

Given the reasons above, the acoustic and impact modeling conducted to support this Programmatic

EIS is by its very nature conservative and complex. It requires numerous assumptions to predict results in 

scenarios. Each of the inputs into the models is purposely developed to be conservative, and this 

conservativeness accumulates throughout the analysis. Further, the models do not take into account all of 

the extensive mitigation measures summarized in Table S-1 or other caveats discussed below. They 

should not be considered as expected levels of actual take.

These 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 
E-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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 the potential impacts. 

The basic acoustic terminology used in this report is presented in numerous published sources 

(e.g., American National Standards Institute [ANSI], 1984, 1986, 2004; Richardson et al., 1995; National 

Research Council [NRC], 2003; Southall et al., 2007). The main definitions used in this assessment are 

provided below, from Southall et al. (2007):

• Pulses: Pulses are brief, broadband, atonal, transient sounds; e.g., explosions, gun 

shots, airgun pulses, and pile driving strikes. Pulses are characterized by a rapid rise 

from ambient pressure to maximal pressure, and (at least near the source) by short 

duration.

• Nonpulse (intermittent or continuous) Sounds: Nonpulse sounds can be tonal, 

broadband, or both. Nonpulse sounds can be of short duration but they lack the rapid 

rise times of true pulses. Nonpulse sounds include those from shipping, aircraft, 

drilling, and active sonar systems. Due to certain propagation effects, it is possible 

that a sound that is pulsed near the source may be perceived by a distant receiver

(e.g., an animal) as a nonpulse sound.

• Peak Sound Pressure: This is the maximum instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified distance from the source airgun. The units of 

pressure are typically bars (English) or, in metric units, either Pascals (Pa) or 

microPascals (μPa). The metric values are commonly expressed in logarithmic form 

as decibels relative to 1 μPa (dB re 1 μPa).

• Peak-to-Peak Sound Pressure: This is the algebraic difference between the peak 

positive and peak negative sound pressures. Units are the same as for peak pressure. 

When expressed in dB, peak-to-peak pressure is typically ~6 dB higher than peak 

pressure.

• Root-Mean-Square (rms) Sound Pressure: In simple terms, this is an 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.

• Sound Pressure Levels (SPLs): The SPLs are given as the dB measures of the 

pressure metrics defined above. The rms SPL is given as dB re: 1 μPa for 

underwater sound and dB re: 20 μPa for aerial sound.

• Source Level (SL): The SL is the received level measured or estimated at a nominal 

distance of 1 meter (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 array of airguns, the nominal overall 

SL, as used in predicting received levels at long distances, exceeds the level 

measurable at any one point in the water near the sources.

• Sound Exposure Level (SEL or energy flux density): This measure represents the 

total energy contained within a pulse, and is in the units dB re 1 μPa2

-s. For a single 

airgun pulse, the numerical value of the SEL measurement, in these units, is usually 

5–15 dB lower than the rms sound pressure in dB re 1 μPa, with the “rms – SEL” 

difference often tending to decrease with increasing range (Greene, 1997; McCauley 

et al., 1998).

• Duration: Duration is the length of the sound, usually measured in seconds. For an 

impulsive sound such as an airgun pulse, the duration may be calculated in a number 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-3 

of different ways. Greene (1997) described duration of an airgun pulse as the interval 

over which 90 percent of the sound energy arrives at the receiver.

Over the past decade, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines regarding levels of 

impulsive sound that might cause injury or behavioral disturbance have been based on the “rms sound 

pressure” metric. However, the rms value depends on the extent to which the sound pulse has been 

“stretched” in duration during propagation, which varies with environmental conditions, so the rms 

measure is often criticized (e.g., Madsen, 2005). There is now reason to believe that auditory effects 

(especially physiological effects like permanent threshold shift [PTS] and temporary threshold shift

[TTS]) of transient sounds on marine mammals are better correlated with the amount of received energy 

than with the level of the strongest pulse and therefore SEL is increasingly the unit of choice in 

evaluations (Southall et al., 2007). 

2. ACOUSTIC MODELING APPROACH

There are two steps to the modeling effort: (1) the determination of the three-dimensional (3D) 

acoustic field emanating from the sound sources and how it propagates through the water; and (2) the 

determination of the net exposure of marine animals that reside in the exposed volume.

Historically, the geophysical community and NMFS have used a simplified approach (referred to here 

as the “transect methodology”) to estimate the potential impacts to marine mammals for airgun sources. 

Essentially, this methodology consisted of the following: (1) determination of the estimated threshold 

isopleth range from the source for harassment under the MMPA for the airgun sources. Nominally these 

thresholds were the 160 dB received level for Level B harassment of any marine mammal and the 180 and 

190 dB received levels for Level A harassment of cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; (2) assumption 

that a cylinder whose radius matched the range to these isopleths and encompassed the entire water 

column was ensonified to that threshold; (3) calculating the surface area ensonified by this water column 

as the source moved along its track; and (4) multiplying that resultant ensonified surface area by the 

density of each marine mammal species present to estimate that species’ numbers of MMPA Level A and 

B potential harassment takes. This methodology was not used in the Programmatic EIS. 

For the Programmatic EIS a more sophisticated approach was used. This approach used a more 

detailed modeling of the source and its properties, the acoustic propagation field in 3D, and 3D animal 

placement and movement to better calculate the potential impacts to marine mammals. For this 

methodology, the first step is largely controlled by properties of the source, such as its movement in time 

and space, and the sound field it generates at any point in time. This is a function of the geometric 

organization (array configuration) of its sound generators, and the spatial, spectral, and temporal 

properties of the sound field that they produce. Propagation modeling further analyzes the effects of the 

physical properties of the ocean, the bottom and the surface, on the sound field as it propagates out from 

the source.

The second step requires knowledge of the diving and movement characteristics of the animals 

residing in the exposed region. Time-based integration models, such as the Acoustic Integration Model© 

(AIM)1, as used in this modeling effort, are necessary to fully evaluate the exposure. The advantage of 

these tools is that they not only provide a more accurate and detailed model of the exposures of a 

population of marine animals in 3D and time, but they also provide the following: (1) statistical data on 

each individually modeled animal and the population as a whole; (2) rate of exposure (sounds per unit of 

time) over the duration of a survey; and (3) the data necessary to determine effects based on more 

sophisticated thresholds, such as SEL.

 1 MAI’s Acoustic Integration Model©, or AIM, is a software package developed to predict the acoustic exposure of marine 

animals from an underwater sound source. The unique and principal component of AIM is a 3D movement engine, which 

programs the geographic and vertical movements of sound sources and simulated marine animals. In 2006, the Center for 

Independent Experts (CIE) conducted a review and assessment of AIM. The CIE panel concluded that AIM is a credible tool 

for developing application models (Independent System for Peer Review, 2006). 
E-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2.1. PROPAGATION MODELING

2.1.1. Overall Modeling Assumptions

For the more complex modeling effort in this appendix, the following general assumptions were 

made:

• the far-field broadband signal from the typical airgun array nominally includes 

significant components up to 2,000 hertz (Hz), with the peak amplitude in the 

far-field near-horizontal spectrum typically occurring between 50 and 100 Hz;

• the modeling needs to address all of the seismic airgun survey types identified in the 

scope of work for this effort – i.e., 2D and 3D surveys, wide azimuth (WAZ) surveys,

vertical seismic profiles (VSP), and high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys; 

• the modeling also needs to address HRG surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals sites, which use non-airgun active acoustic sources including side-scan 

sonars, boomers, chirp subbottom profilers, and single or multibeam depth sounders; 

• there would also be non-acoustic surveys (i.e., controlled source electromagnetic 

surveys, magnetotelluric surveys, gravity and gradiometry surveys, magnetic surveys, 

deep stratigraphic and shallow test drilling, bottom sampling, and several remote 

sensing methods), but they are not addressed by this acoustic modeling effort;

• nominal or representative sources, as identified by the BOEM, were used for source 

modeling and source specification identification;

• conditions to be modeled include all potential survey areas in the Area of Interest 

(AOI) for the Programmatic EIS, including all water depths from the coastline 

(outside of estuaries) to 350 nautical miles (nmi) (648 kilometers [km]) from shore 

and including all four seasons;

• animal density estimates would use the best available data, specified by location and 

season for the modeling effort; and

• animal movement modeling would use the best available input data.

2.1.2. Acoustic Propagation Model Selection

The details of the acoustic propagation modeling are provided in Appendix D and will not be 

repeated here.

2.2. OVERALL MODELING APPROACH

The following step-wise modeling approach is included to illustrate the overall approach to predict 

the acoustic impacts of G&G activities in the Mid- and South Atlantic for the proposed action:

• The Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) database was used to extract 

sound velocity profiles (SVPs) for the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas to 

characterize the entire water body into a discreet number of specific SVP regions, or 

propagation regions; 

• The SVPs for winter, spring, summer, and fall were then examined for the entire area 

covered by this Programmatic EIS. After examination of the SVPs, it was 

determined each season had unique characteristics which prevented any combination 

of seasons with similar propagation characteristics. Additionally, the SVPs for each 

season were grouped into about 17 areas or regions with similar propagation 

characteristics and representative SVPs for each region were selected. Finally, the 

bottom characteristics for each of these 17 regions were examined to determine if any 

region needed to be divided to accommodate the influence of the various bottom 

types on that regions propagation. The result was 21 separate modeling regions that 

taken in total captured the propagation for the entire area covered by this 

Programmatic EIS for all four seasons;
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-5 

• Additionally, the seasonal distribution of marine mammals was examined using the 

best available databases to see if there was any additional correlation with 

bathymetry and SVP regions. Using this database, the seasonal distribution for each 

species was examined by overlaying the charts of the 21 acoustic modeling regions; 

the average density of each species was then numerically determined for each region.

• One final acoustic characterization was then conducted in order to allow the correct 

acoustic modeling for the shallowest water activities. Of the 21 modeling regions, 

7 regions covered the area of the continental shelf, but these areas included water 

depths of up to approximately 200 m (656 feet [ft]). Since all of the marine mineral 

and renewable energy HRG surveys would be conducted in water less than 100 m 

(328 ft) deep, a refined propagation analysis using 50 and 100 m (164 and 328 ft) 

deep sites were identified for each of these seven shallow water regions. The 

acoustics modeling would use these 14 additional sites to properly capture the 

acoustic propagation for these two categories of non-airgun HRG surveys;

• JASCO Applied Sciences (JASCO) provided the acoustic propagation modeling and 

results for all sources and the regions that G&G surveys would potentially occur in as 

described in Appendix D; 

• The AIM was used to estimate the impacts per survey block for each species, based 

on the typical planned geometry for each type of survey in each modeled area where 

the surveys would be conducted, using the appropriate thresholds for that species.

3. ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS

3.1. HISTORICAL AND PROPOSED CURRENT CRITERIA

Since the mid-1990’s, the NMFS has specified that marine mammals exposed to sounds with received 

levels exceeding 180 or 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, were considered 

to exceed Level A (Injury) levels. Similarly, NMFS specifies that for pulsed sounds, cetaceans and 

pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) were considered to exceed Level B 

(Behavioral Harassment) criteria (Table E-1). For all of these criteria, the exposure level was the 

maximum acoustic rms pressure level received by an animal.

Table E-1 

 

Historical Injury and Behavioral Disturbance Criteria for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds for Airgun Signals, 

as Recognized and Used by the National Marine Fisheries Service

Group

Level A (Injury)

Pressure

(dB re 1 μPa rms) 

Level B (Behavioral Disturbance)

Pressure

(dB re 1 μPa rms) 

Cetaceans 180 160

Pinnipeds 190 160

3.1.1. Injury Criteria

The 180- and 190-dB re 1 μPa (rms) criteria were determined before there was specific information 

about the received levels of underwater sound that would cause temporary or permanent hearing damage 

in marine mammals. Subsequently, data on received levels that cause the onset of TTS have been 

obtained for certain toothed whales and pinnipeds (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). 

A group of specialists in marine mammal acoustics, the “noise criteria group,” has recommended new 

criteria, based on current scientific knowledge, to replace the somewhat arbitrary 180 and 190 dB (rms) 

criteria (Southall et al., 2007). 

Recently acquired data indicate that TTS-onset in marine mammals is more closely correlated with 

the received energy levels than with rms levels. In odontocetes and the more sensitive pinnipeds exposed 
E-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

to nonpulse sound, TTS onset occurs near 195 and 183 dB re 1 μPa2 -s, respectively (Southall et al., 

2007). In odontocetes exposed to impulse sounds, the TTS threshold can be as low as approximately 186 

dB re 1 μPa2

-s. The corresponding value for pinnipeds is less well defined. There are published data on 

levels of nonpulse sound (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005) but not of impulse sound eliciting TTS in pinnipeds. 

Based on the results for nonpulse sound, plus the known tendency in other mammals for lower TTS 

thresholds with impulse than with nonpulse sound, the TTS thresholds for pinnipeds exposed to impulse 

sound may be as low as 171 dB re 1 μPa2

-s in the more sensitive species, such as the harbor seal.

There are no specific data concerning the levels of underwater sound necessary to cause PTS in any 

species of marine mammal. However, data from terrestrial mammals provide a basis for estimating the 

difference between the (unmeasured) PTS thresholds and the measured TTS thresholds. A conservative 

(precautionary) estimate of this offset between TTS and PTS thresholds, when sound exposure is 

measured on a SEL basis (received energy levels), is to add 15 dB to the TTS value for impulsive sounds 

and 20 dB for nonpulse sounds (Southall et al., 2007). Thus, now-available data indicate that the lowest 

received levels of impulsive sounds (e.g., airgun pulses) that might elicit slight auditory injury (i.e., PTS) 

are 198 dB re 1 μPa2

-s in cetaceans (i.e., 183 + 15 dB), and 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s in the more sensitive 

pinnipeds (i.e., 171 + 15 dB). Corresponding values for nonpulse sounds (e.g., boomers, side-scan

sonars, chirp subbottom profilers, and single beam or multibeam depth sounders) are 215 re 1 μPa2

-s in 

cetaceans (i.e., 195 + 20 dB) and 203 dB re 1 μPa2

-s in the more sensitive pinnipeds (e.g., 183 + 20 dB) 

(Southall et al., 2007). These SEL measures are all assumed to be taken using M-weighting; 

i.e., somewhat down-weighting the energy for frequencies near and especially beyond the lower and 

upper frequency limits of hearing in the relevant marine mammal group (Southall et al., 2007).

The noise criteria group 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 

(Table E-2). 

The primary measure of sound used in the proposed new criteria is the received sound energy, not just 

in the single strongest pulse, but accumulated over time. The most appropriate interval over which the 

received airgun signal should be accumulated is not well defined. However, pending the availability of 

additional relevant information, the noise criteria group has suggested considering noise exposure over 

24-hour (hr) periods.

Included in Southall et al. (2007) is a discussion and proposed application of M-weighting, which 

would be used to adjust a species’ threshold slightly in order to account for its relative sensitivity to 

signals at various frequencies. M-weighting was used as described in Appendix D. 

Table E-2 

 

Injury and Behavioral Disturbance Exposure Criteria for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds, 

as proposed by Southall et al. (2007)

Group 

Level A (Injury) Level B (Behavioral Disturbance)

Pressure 

(dB re 1 μPa rms) 

(peak) (flat weighted) 

Energy 

(dB re 1 μPa2-s)

Pressure 

(dB re 1 μPa rms) 

Pulsed Signals/Systems

Low-frequency Cetaceans 230 198 *

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 230 198 *

High-frequency Cetaceans 230 198 *

Pinnipeds (in water) 218 186 *

Nonpulsed Signals/Systems

Low-frequency Cetaceans 230 215 *

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 230 215 *

High-frequency Cetaceans 230 215 *

Pinnipeds (in water) 218 203 *

* = not specified in Southall et al., 2007. 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-7 

3.1.2. Behavioral Disturbance Criteria

As noted above, the existing NMFS criterion for potential behavioral disturbance to marine mammals 

from airgun-based seismic surveys is 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The noise criteria group concluded that 

available data are insufficient as a basis for recommending any specific alternative behavioral disturbance 

criteria applicable to multiple-pulse sounds like airgun array sounds (Southall et al., 2007). Behavioral 

reactions to acoustic exposure are generally more variable, context-dependent, and less predictable than 

effects of noise exposure on hearing or physiology (Southall et al., 2007). There is no consensus on the 

appropriate noise exposure metric for assessing behavioral reactions, and it is recognized that many 

variables other than exposure level affect the nature and extent of responses to a particular stimulus 

(Southall et al., 2007). Finally, it is often difficult to differentiate brief, minor, biologically unimportant 

reactions from profound, sustained, and/or biologically meaningful responses related to growth, survival, 

and reproduction (NRC, 2005; Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2011). Therefore, in the Programmatic 

EIS, only the 160 dB criterion was used for the calculation of Level B incidental takes. This criterion

applies to both multiple pulse signals/systems including (1) the large (5,400 cubic in) seismic airgun array

and (2) the small (90 cubic in) airgun array; as well as the nonpulsed electromechanical sources/systems

including (1) boomers, (2) multibeam depth sounders, (3) side-scan sonars, and (4) chirp subbottom 

profilers. The justification for the use of this criterion for the seismic airgun sources is that it has historic 

precedent. For the nonpulse systems, this threshold has also been historically used for nonpulsed systems 

and even extended to continuous nonpulsed systems. Even though these systems are not technically 

“continuously” transmitting, they can transmit very short signals (i.e., signals that are tens of thousandths 

to tenths of a second long) every second but in different beams or frequencies. Additionally, it should be 

pointed out that many of the transmission frequencies of these nonpulsed systems are greater than 

200 kilohertz (kHz), and therefore are above the hearing spectrum of nearly all of the marine species, with 

the exception of the harbour porpoise. Thus, the use of the 160 dB SPL criterion for the Level B 

threshold for both the multiple pulsed and nonpulsed systems is a reasonable combination of the historic 

values used and best current science and precedents available. Other methodologies, including the 

possible use of a risk continuum function as was used in the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System 

(SURTASS) Low-Frequency Active (LFA) Sonar Final EIS and Final Supplemental EIS (U.S. Dept. of 

the Navy, 2001, 2007a) have been examined for Level B impact assessment for various sources, but none 

has been applied to the impact analysis for this Programmatic EIS. NMFS is developing acoustic 

guidelines for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal species under its 

jurisdiction (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm). The draft guidelines have 

undergone an internal review; an external peer review began in July 2013. After peer review, NMFS will 

seek public comment on the scientific and implementation aspects of the document. Once the peer review 

and public comments are addressed, NMFS will finalize and release the acoustic guidelines.

Acoustic impact criteria applicable to other types of biota are less well-developed than the criteria for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds. There is an ongoing effort to develop science-based criteria for fish and sea 

turtles.

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 Supplemental Draft 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 Programmatic EIS is not possible given the uncertainty that still remains on the final content of the 
E-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

criteria. However, if NMFS finalizes new criteria, BOEM will evaluate the criteria in the context of any 

site-specific analysis under OCSLA and NEPA. NMFS will also apply any new criteria at this 

site-specific level through any undertaken MMPA authorization process.

4. ACOUSTIC SOURCE MODELING

A detailed discussion of acoustic sources, including both airguns and electromechanical sources, as 

well as how they were modeled acoustically, can be found in Appendix D. Sources modeled in 

Appendix D include a large (5,400 cubic in) airgun array, small (90 cubic in) airgun array, boomer, 

side-scan sonar, chirp subbottom profiler, and multibeam depth sounder.

5. AREA ACOUSTIC PROPAGATION CHARACTERIZATION

5.1. GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ALL OPERATIONAL AREAS

This section discusses the methodology used to characterize the underwater acoustic propagation 

environment of the Area of Interest (AOI) (Figure E-1) for propagation modeling to be used for impact 

analysis of underwater acoustic source transmissions. This characterization attempts to eliminate the need 

to account for existing environmental features that do not impact the final analysis while maintaining an 

adequate representation of the environment of the AOI that impacts the analysis. The characterization 

was conducted in two parts. First, the sound speed environment was sorted into areas of like propagation 

for each of the four seasons. Second, bottom sediments were examined and classified as two sub-areas to 

account for the different acoustic bottom loss areas expected in the study. The two parts were then 

combined to yield defined subareas of unique propagation modes and bottom loss.

Figure E-1. Area of Interest (black line) Plotted over Bathymetry from the 

Digital Bathymetric Data Base Variable Resolution Database 

(depth in feet).

5.1.1. Propagation

Available sound speed profile databases were evaluated to find an appropriate database to use that 

contained data for the AOI throughout the year. The Provinced (GDEM) monthly sound speed database 

was selected to characterize the sound speed environment of the deep water modeling regions 

(water depths greater than 1,000 ft). The Provinced GDEM database represents the AOI using 13 sound 

speed areas or provinces and groups like-sound speed profiles in provinces for each month of the year 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-9 

(Figure E-2). This database does not have a shallow water component. The GDEM Variable Resolution 

(GDEM_V) database was selected to characterize the sound speed environment of the shallow water 

regions (water depths less than 305 m [1,000 ft]). The GDEM_V database was interrogated at a 

15-minute (min) spacing to yield sound speed profiles in the shallow water portion of the AOI for water 

depth from 9 to 305 m (30 to 1,000 ft). 

Figure E-2. Provinced Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) 

Areas within the Area of Interest (black line).

Profiles were examined from each database using the months presented in Table E-3 to represent 

each season. To eliminate the redundant effort needed to conduct impact analysis on each sound speed 

profile extracted for the AOI, each profile was examined and grouped into areas of similar acoustic 

propagation and therefore similar acoustic impact. The acoustic propagation was modeled for each 

profile, for each season, using a standard raytrace model. An acoustic raytrace will show the propagation 

path for acoustic energy as it travels from a source and through the water. The representative sound 

source used for this raytrace modeling was omni-directional at a depth of 6 m (20 ft). The propagation 

paths were modeled by computing all ray paths (±90°) of the acoustic energy along an environmentally 

range-independent radial (one sound speed profile and a flat bottom) for each profile and each season.

Table E-3 

 

Month Used to Represent Each Season in Sound Speed Database Extraction 

Season Representative Month

Winter February

Spring May

Summer August

Fall November

The raytraces for each season were examined and grouped into like propagation areas which yielded 

areas with similar acoustic propagation for both shallow and deep water areas. The distinguishing 

characteristics of acoustic propagation paths in the AOI can be grouped into the following:

1. Presence of a Surface Duct

The presence or absence of a surface layer that trapped some energy from a shallow 

source depth is the first discriminator of propagation characteristics. A surface layer that 

traps acoustic energy is also called a surface duct. A surface duct occurs when the sound 
E-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

speed increases with depth from the surface to a depth below the source depth. Generally 

this occurs in colder seasons where colder air temperature and higher winds cool and mix 

waters in the surface layer. Surface ducts can also occur when water masses of different 

densities mix, such as north-flowing Gulf Stream water mixing with south-flowing North 

Atlantic waters. The acoustic ray paths trapped in the surface duct do not hit the bottom, 

but are either turned upward to reflect off the surface over-and-over (Figure E-3) or 

turned downward to be trapped again. Not all transmitted acoustic energy is trapped in a 

surface duct. In fact, most transmitted energy from shallow source in a surface duct is 

reflected off the bottom. But surface layer trapped energy propagations with less loss 

than bottom bounce paths, therefore increasing the potential range of impact of the 

transmitted acoustic energy from the source.

Figure E-3. Example of Surface Layer Trapped Acoustic Energy.

2. Strength of the Surface Duct

If a surface layer is present, the relative amount of acoustic angles that are trapped in the 

surface duct is the next discriminator of propagation characteristics. Generally, the 

deeper the surface layer, the more acoustic angles are trapped in the layer; additional 

angles can be trapped if the gradient of sound speed is greater, but this is not seen in the 

AOI. The more acoustic source angles trapped in the surface duct, the more energy is 

transmitted from the source to the surrounding environment without attenuation from 

bottom reflection and therefore have more potential to effect the environment.

3. Presence of a Convergence Zone

The third discriminator of propagation characteristics is the presence of a Convergence 

Zone (CZ). The CZ propagation only occurs in very deep water where the sound speed 

eventually increases with great depth (due to pressure) and the deep-going acoustic 

propagation rays are bent back toward the surface (Figure E-4). These deep-going rays 

will travel back to the source depth (usually at a range of 30-40 nmi from the source) and 

turn toward the deep again or be reflected off the surface and travel deep again. The 

deeper the water depth, more rays will travel in the CZ. These deep-going rays travel a 

relatively great distance without reflection off the bottom and without the corresponding 

reflection loss. The water depth needed for a CZ to occur varies with the season and the 

depth of the source. If the source depth is constant, the water depth needed increases 

with warmer seasons. The presence of a CZ will support propagation of acoustic energy 

to relatively long distances without attention of bottom reflection and could increase the 

Surface layer trapped 

acoustic energy
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-11

potential to effect the environment at a relatively long range. The presence or absence of

surface ducts is independent of CZ propagation.

Figure E-4. Example of the Convergence Zone Propagation.

4. Bottom Bounce Paths

The last acoustic propagation discriminator, and the most dominate in the AOI, is total 

bottom bounce propagation. Total bottom bounce propagation is not trapped in a surface 

layer nor CZ propagated, but travels downward from the source to reflect off the bottom. 

The amount of acoustic energy reflected off the bottom back into the water is dependent 

on the composition of the bottom. A rocky bottom reflects more energy back into the 

water than a muddy bottom. Therefore, the bottom composition must be considered 

when estimating the environmental impact of bottom bounce acoustic energy that is of 

sufficient strength to contribute to the environmental impact.

5.1.1.1. Winter

The acoustic propagation environment of the AOI in winter can be characterized with a single profile 

for deep water areas and two unique sound speed profiles for shallow water areas. The winter profile 

from GDEM Province 180 is selected to represent all deep water areas (>305 m [1,000 ft]) of the AOI. 

This profile supports only shallow angles in ducted propagation, but does support CZ propagation in 

water depths greater than 4,267 m (14,000 ft). Therefore, there are four unique types used to characterize 

winter propagation in the AOI (Figure E-5): 

Convergence Zone
E-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure E-5. Winter Propagation Characteristics of the Area of 

Interest (black line).

1. Deep Water CZ propagation, represented by GDEM Province 180/February, for 

water depths greater than 4,267 m (14,000 ft) in the AOI. The representative location 

for this propagation type is 32-00° N/72-00° W. Only acoustic energy transmitted at 

shallow angles (0° to ±1°) from the source is trapped in the surface duct, if any. Steep 

source angles are transmitted into the bottom. Source angles between ±1° and ±6° 

(or more depending on water depth) are converted to CZ propagation.

2. Deep Water Bottom Bounce propagation, represented by GDEM Province 

180/February, for water depths greater than 305 m (1,000 ft), but less than 4,267 m 

(14,000 ft), in the AOI. The representative location for this propagation type is 

32-45°N/76-00°W. Only acoustic energy transmitted at shallow angles (0° to ±1°) 

from the source is propagated in the surface duct, if any. All other source angles are 

transmitted into the bottom.

3. Southern Shallow Waters, represented by the GDEM February profile at 

30-30° N/80-15° W, for water depths less than 1,000 ft (305 m) and south of 

31-30° N. Only acoustic energy transmitted at shallow angles (0° to ±1°) from the 

source is propagated in the surface duct, if any. All other source angle paths are 

transmitted into the bottom.

4. Northern Shallow Waters, represented by the GDEM February profile at 

36-15° N/74-45° W, for water depths less than 305 m (1,000 ft) and north of 

31-30°N. This profile traps a moderate amount of acoustic energy in the surface 

duct. At least ±2° of source energy paths are trapped in the surface layer, but 

generally ±4° are trapped. All other source angle paths are transmitted into the 

bottom.

5.1.1.2. Spring

The acoustic propagation environment of the AOI in spring can be characterized with a single profile 

for deep water areas and two unique sound speed profiles for shallow water areas. The spring profile 

from GDEM Province 156 is selected to represent all deep water areas of the AOI. This profile supports 

only shallow angles in ducted propagation, but does support CZ propagation in water depths greater than 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-13

4,267 m (14,000 ft). Therefore there are four unique types used to characterize spring propagation in the 

AOI (Figure E-6): 

Figure E-6. Spring Propagation Characteristics of the Area of 

Interest (black line).

1. Deep Water CZ propagation, represented by GDEM Province 156/May, for water 

depths greater than 4,267 m (14,000 ft) in the AOI. The representative location for 

this propagation type is 32-00° N/72-00° W. Only acoustic energy transmitted at the 

shallowest angles from the source is propagated in the surface duct, if any. Steep 

source angles are transmitted into the bottom. Source angles between ±1° and ±4° 

(or more, depending on water depth) are converted to CZ propagation.

2. Deep Water Bottom Bounce propagation, represented by GDEM Province 156/May, 

for water depths greater than 305 m (1,000 ft), but less than 4,267 m (14,000 ft), in 

the AOI. The representative location for this propagation type is 31-30° N/75-00° W. 

Only acoustic energy transmitted at the shallowest angles from the source is trapped 

in the surface duct, if any. All other source angles are transmitted into the bottom.

3. Bottom Bounce Shallow Waters, represented by the GDEM May profile at 

32-00° N/79-15° W, for water depths less than 305 m (1,000 ft, south of 34-30° N or 

north of 36-00° N. Only acoustic energy transmitted at shallow angles (0° to ±1°) 

from the source is trapped in the surface duct, if any. All other source angles paths 

are transmitted into the bottom.

4. Moderately-ducted (Outer Banks) Shallow Waters, represented by the GDEM May 

profile at 35-00° N/76-15° W, for water depths less than 305 m (1,000 ft), between 

36-00° N and 34-30° N. This area is roughly the Outer Banks area of North Carolina. 

This profile traps a moderate amount of acoustic energy in the surface duct. At least 

±2° of source energy paths are trapped in the surface duct, but generally ±4° are 

trapped. All other source angle paths are transmitted into the bottom.

5.1.1.3. Summer

The acoustic propagation environment of the AOI in summer can be characterized with a single 

profile for deep water areas and one sound speed profile for shallow water areas. The summer profile 

from GDEM Province 156 is selected to represent all deep water areas of the AOI. This profile supports 
E-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

only the shallowest angle in ducted propagation, but does support CZ propagation in water depths greater 

than 4,877 m (16,000 ft). The depth of CZ propagation has increased from spring because of surface 

warming of waters in the AOI. There are three unique types used to characterize summer propagation in 

the AOI (Figure E-7): 

Figure E-7. Summer Propagation Characteristics of the Area of 

Interest (black line).

1. Deep Water CZ propagation, represented by GDEM Province 156/August, for water 

depths greater than 4,877 m (16,000 ft) in the AOI. The representative location for 

this propagation type is 32-00° N/72-00° W. Only acoustic energy transmitted at the 

shallowest angles from the source is propagated in the surface duct, if any. Steep 

source angles are transmitted into the bottom. Source angles between ±1° and ±4°

(or more depending on water depth) are converted to CZ propagation.

2. Deep Water Bottom Bounce propagation, represented by GDEM Province 

156/August, for water depths greater than 305 m (1,000 ft), but less than 4,877 m 

(16,000 ft), in the AOI. The representative location for this propagation type is 

31-30° N/75-00° W. Only acoustic energy transmitted at the shallowest angles from 

the source is propagated in the surface duct, if any. All other source angles are 

transmitted into the bottom.

3. Shallow Waters, represented by the GDEM August profile at 36-00° N/74-45° W, for 

water depths in water depths less than 305 m (1,000 ft). Only acoustic energy 

transmitted at the shallowest angle from the source is propagated in the surface duct, 

if any. All other source angle paths are transmitted into the bottom.

5.1.1.4. Fall

Fall is the most complex season for underwater sound propagation characterization within the AOI. 

The southern portion of the AOI still exhibits summer-like propagation while the northern portion has 

transitioned toward winter-like propagation. The acoustic propagation environment of the AOI in fall is 

characterized by two deep water areas and two shallow water areas. Each of the deep water areas 

supports either bottom bounce or CZ propagation. There are six unique propagation types used to 

characterize fall propagation in the AOI (Figure E-8): 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-15

Figure E-8. Fall Propagation Characteristics of the Area of Interest 

(black line).

1. Northern Deep Water CZ propagation, represented by GDEM Province 

142/November, for water depths greater than 3,810 m (12,500 ft) in the AOI. The 

representative location for this propagation type is 36-30° N/71-30° W. Only 

acoustic energy transmitted at shallow angles (0°-±2°) from the source is propagated 

in the surface duct. Steep source angles are transmitted into the bottom. The narrow 

range of source angles between ±2° and ±4° (or more depending on water depth) are 

converted to CZ propagation.

2. Northern Deep Water Bottom Bounce propagation, represented by GDEM Province 

142/November, for water depths greater than 305 m (1,000 ft), but less than 3,810 m 

(12,500 ft), in the AOI. The representative location for this propagation type is 

36-30° N/72-30° W. Only acoustic energy transmitted at shallow angles (0°- ±2°) 

from the source is propagated in the surface duct. All other source angles are 

transmitted into the bottom.

3. Southern Deep Water CZ propagation, represented by GDEM Province 

156/November, for water depths greater than 4,115 m (13,500 ft) in the AOI. The 

representative location for this propagation type is 29-30° N/75-30° W. Only 

acoustic energy transmitted at the shallowest angles from the source is propagated in 

the surface duct, if any. Steep source angles are transmitted into the bottom. The 

narrow range of source angles between ±2° and ±4° (or more depending on water 

depth) are converted to CZ propagation.

4. Southern Deep Water Bottom Bounce propagation, represented by GDEM Province

156/November, for water depths greater than 305 m (1,000 ft), but less than 4,115 m 

(13,500 ft), in the AOI. The representative location for this propagation type is 

31-00° N/75-30° W. Only acoustic energy transmitted at the shallowest angles from 

the source is propagated in the surface duct, if any. All other source angles are 

transmitted into the bottom.

5. Southern Shallow Waters, represented by the GDEM November profile at 

32-00° N/79-15° W, for water depths in water depths less than 305 m (1,000 ft) and 

areas south of 34-30° N. Only acoustic energy transmitted at the shallowest angle 

from the source is propagated in the surface duct, if any. All other source angle paths 

are transmitted into the bottom.
E-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

6. Northern Shallow Waters, represented by the GDEM November profile at 

36-30° N/74-45° W, for water depths in water depths less than 305 m (1,000 ft) and 

areas northern of 34-30° N. A moderate amount of acoustic energy is trapped in the 

surface duct for source angle transmitted up to ±5°. All other source angle paths are 

transmitted into the bottom.

5.1.2. Bottom Loss

The above work shows that a great deal of acoustic energy transmitted in the AOI will reflect off the 

bottom. In addition, the nature of the intended acoustic work will “aim” the transmitted energy toward 

the bottom. Therefore, acoustic bottom loss should be considered to evaluate the impact of transmitted 

acoustic energy in the AOI. 

Bottom loss is dependent on the type of sediment that reflects the acoustic energy, along with the 

frequency of the sound reflecting off the bottom and the angle that the sound reflects off the bottom. This 

study assumes that frequency and angle do not change with location and examines changes in sediment 

type over location to understand the bottom loss in the AOI. More than 10,000 observations from the 

National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) Surficial Sea Floor Sediment database were used to 

characterize sediments in the study. Bottom sediment grain size index was assigned to each observation 

(Table E-4) according to the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory Technical Report 

9407 on bottom loss modeling (University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory, 1994). 

The results of the above processing yielded an irregularly spaced dataset of observation location and 

grain size throughout the AOI. This dataset was used to create a 1 nmi spacing grid to represent the 

geographic distribution of grain size for the AOI by using the closest measured data for each grid point 

(Figure E-9). 

Fine grain sediment, such as clays (with high grain size index) can be seen to dominate the areas of 

water depth greater than 1,219 m (4,000 ft). Coarser sediments, such as sand and gravel (lower grain size 

index) can be seen to dominate areas of water depth less than 1,219 m (4,000 ft). Bottom loss curves 

were computed with the Rayleigh Bottom Loss Model using the dominate grain size indexes seen in the 

AOI (Figure E-10). 

A mix of gravels and sands dominate the sediment types in water depths less than 1,219 m (4,000 ft). 

These corresponding grain size indexes (-1 and 1) result in very similar bottom loss curves (Figure E-10). 

The difference seen is insignificant when considering impact analysis. A grain size index of -1 is selected 

to represent the sediment for areas of water depth less than 1,219 m (4,000 ft). The bottom loss for 

a -1 grain size index is less, resulting in more energy reflected back into the water column, and therefore 

is the worst case for impact analysis.

Bottom loss in deep water areas has little effect on impact analysis because results are driven by the 

direct path propagation from the source directly to the animal. Propagation losses of the sound traveling 

to the bottom and back are very high compared to direct path losses. In water depths greater than 1,219 m 

(4,000 ft), spherical spreading loss of acoustic energy traveling from a near-surface source to the bottom 

and back to the near surface is at least 67 dB. Therefore efforts to model the details of different bottom 

loss regions in deep water would have no consequence in impact analysis. A sediment grain size index of 

7 is therefore used characterized areas of water depth greater than 1,219 m (4,000 ft). 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-17

Table E-4 

 

Grain Size Index for Sediment Type

Sediment Type Bottom Sediment Grain Size Index

Rough Rock -9.0

Rock -7.0

Cobble -3.0

Gravel -3.0

Pebble -3.0

Sandy Gravel -1.0

Very Coarse Sand -0.5

Muddy Sandy Gravel 0.0

Coarse Sand 0.5

Gravelly Sand 0.5

Gravelly Muddy Sand 1.0

Sand 1.5

Medium Sand 1.5

Muddy Gravel 2.0

Fine Sand 2.5

Silty Sand 2.5

Muddy Sand 3.0

Very Fine Sand 3.5

Clayey Sand 4.0

Coarse Silt 4.5

Sandy Silt 5.0

Medium Silt 5.5

Sand-Silt-Clay 5.5

Silt 6.0

Sandy Mud 6.0

Fine Silt 6.5

Clayey Silt 6.5

Sandy Clay 7.0

Very Fine Silt 7.5

Silty Clay 8.0

Clay 9.0
E-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure E-9. Grain Size Index for the Area of Interest. 

Figure E-10. Rayleigh Bottom Loss Estimates for Grain Size Index 7, 1, and -1. 

5.1.3. General Characterization Summary

Combining the defined area of sound speed profiles and bottom sediments presented above results in 

a definition of 21 unique propagation modes and bottom loss regions in the AOI. These 21 modeling 

regions are defined in Table E-5 and cover all four seasons. Each region is intended to define one sound 

speed profile and grain size index to be used for each transmission loss (TL) model run to be used for 

impact analysis. The SVPs used for this characterization are specified in Table E-6. The resulting 

seasonal plots show these 21 modeling regions (Figures E-11 through E-14). 

This study defines the change between shallow and deep sound speed environments at 305 m 

(1,000 ft) water depth. This is because the deep water database of sound speed does not extend into water 

depths less than 305 m (1,000 ft). This study also defined a change in the sediment type at 1,219 m 

Grain Size=1

Grain Size=-1

Grain Size=7
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-19

(4,000 ft) water depth. This change is defined from direct observation of the sediment grain size data. 

Where appropriate, a unique propagation/sediment region has been assigned to this area between 

305-1,219 m (1,000-4,000 ft) of water depth. This is especially true for the Blake Plateau areas of the 

southern portion of the AOI, south of 33-30° N (Figure E-1). However, north of 33-30° N, the distance 

between the 305 m and 1,219 m (1,000 ft and 4,000 ft) isobaths is a relatively small area; no distinction 

has been drawn between areas defined by the these isobaths north of 33-30° N. This can be seen in the 

water depth definition of the Fall Northern Deep Bottom Bounce area.

Table E-5 

 

Summary of Propagation and Bottom Loss Characterization in the Area of Interest

Modeling 

Region Season Propagation Characterization 

Water 

Depth

(kft) 

GDEM Profile Representative 

Location Sediment

Grain 

Size 

Index 

1 Winter Convergence Zone >14 Province 180/February 

32-00N

72-00W Clay 7 

2 Winter Bottom Bounce (Clay) 4-14 Province 180/February 32-45N

76-00W Clay 7 

3 Winter Bottom Bounce (Sand) 1-4 Province 180/February 31-00N

78-00W Sand -1 

4 Winter Southern Shallow Water <1 February @ 

representative location

30-30N

80-15W Sand -1 

5 Winter Northern Shallow Water <1 February @ 

representative location

36-15N

74-45W Sand -1 

6 Spring Convergence Zone >14 Province 156/May 32-00N

72-00W Clay 7 

7 Spring Bottom Bounce (Clay) 4-14 Province 156/May 31-30N

75-00W Clay 7 

8 Spring Bottom Bounce (Sand) 1-4 Province 156/May 31-00N

78-00W Sand -1 

9 Spring Bottom Bounce 

Shallow Water <1 May @ representative location

32-00N

79-15W Sand -1 

10 Spring 

Moderately-ducted 

(Outer Banks) shallow 

water

<1 May @ representative 

location

35-00N 

76-15W Sand -1 

11 Summer Convergence Zone >16 Province 156/August 32-00N

72-00W Clay 7 

12 Summer Bottom Bounce (Clay) 4-16 Province 156/August 31-30N

75-00W Clay 7 

13 Summer Bottom Bounce (Sand) 1-4 Province 156/August 31-00N

78-00W Sand -1 

14 Summer Shallow Water <1 August @ 

representative location

36-00N

74-45W Sand -1 

15 Fall Northern Convergence 

Zone >12.5 Province 142/November

36-30N

71-00W Clay 7 

16 Fall Northern Deep Bottom 

Bounce

1-12.5

a Province 

142/November

36-30N

72-00W Clay 7 

17 Fall Southern Convergence 

Zone >13.5 Province 156/November

29-30N

75-30W Clay 7 

18 Fall Southern Deep Bottom 

Bounce (Clay) 4-13.5 Province 156/November

31-00N

75-30W Clay 7 

19 Fall Southern Deep Bottom 

Bounce (Sand) 1-4 Province 156/November

31-00N

78-00W Sand -1 

20 Fall Southern Shallow Water <1 November @ 

representative location

32-00N

79-15W Sand -1 

21 Fall Northern Shallow Water <1 November @ 

representative location

36-30N

74-45W Sand -1 

a Note: In the Fall Northern Deep Bottom Bounce sub-area, the area defined by the 305 m and 1,219 m (1,000 ft and 4,000 ft) 

isobaths, occurs on the shelf break and occupies a relatively small area, therefore this sub-area is re-defined as starting at 305 m 

(1,000 ft) water depth.
E-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table E-6 

 

Summary Table of the Sound Velocity Profiles Used in the Characterization of the Area

Sound Velocities (m/s)

Modeling Regions

Depth

(m) 1,2,3 4 5 6,7,8 9 10 11,12,13 14 15,16 17,18, 19 20 21

0 1532.9 1527.3 1524.6 1533.7 1532.6 1529.3 1544.3 1533.6 1524.7 1529.3 1516.2 1535.5

2 1527.4 1524.6 1532.6 1529.5 1533.7 1516.3 1535.6

4 1527.4 1524.6 1532.5 1529.7 1533.8 1516.4 1535.7

6 1527.5 1524.6 1532.5 1529.9 1533.8 1516.5 1535.7

8 1527.5 1524.6 1532.5 1530.2 1533.9 1516.6 1535.7

10 1533.1 1527.6 1524.6 1533.8 1532.5 1530.5 1544.5 1533.8 1524.9 1529.5 1516.7 1535.7

15 1527.8 1524.5 1532.4 1531.3 1532.5 1517.4 1535.7

20 1533.3 1527.8 1524.5 1533.6 1532.3 1531.8 1544.3 1530.3 1525.1 1529.6 1517.6 1535.7

25 1527.7 1524.4 1531.9 1531.9 1527.5 1517.2 1535.7

30 1533.4 1527.7 1524.3 1532.9 1531.4 1531.9 1543.0 1524.5 1525.2 1529.8 1516.5 1535.6

35 1527.5 1524.1 1530.8 1531.7 1522.2 1515.1 1535.5

40 1527.3 1523.8 1530.2 1531.3 1519.7 1513.3 1535.4

45 1527.0 1523.6 1529.4 1531.0 1517.4 1511.4 1535.1

50 1533.6 1526.8 1523.3 1530.4 1528.7 1530.5 1536.4 1515.5 1525.6 1530.1 1509.8 1534.8

55 1526.4 1523.0 1528.1 1530.0 1514.5 1509.4 1534.4

60 1526.1 1522.6 1527.4 1529.4 1513.8 1509.2 1534.0

65 1525.7 1522.2 1526.7 1528.8 1513.1 1508.9 1533.4

70 1525.2 1521.7 1525.9 1528.1 1512.5 1508.7 1532.7

75 1533.4 1524.7 1521.2 1528.1 1525.1 1527.4 1531.1 1512.0 1525.8 1530.2 1508.5 1531.9

80 1524.1 1520.7 1524.4 1526.8 1511.6 1508.4 1530.9

85 1523.5 1520.2 1523.6 1526.1 1511.4 1508.3 1529.8

90 1522.8 1519.7 1522.9 1525.5 1511.3 1508.2 1528.5

95 1522.2 1519.1 1522.1 1524.9 1511.0 1508.0 1527.3

100 1532.0 1521.4 1518.5 1527.3 1521.2 1524.3 1529.8 1510.7 1525.4 1529.6 1507.9 1526.1

110 1520.0 1517.4 1519.6 1523.2 1509.9 1507.4 1523.8

120 1518.4 1516.2 1517.9 1522.0 1509.0 1506.9 1521.6

125 1529.9 1527.0 1529.0 1524.3 1528.2

130 1516.8 1514.9 1516.2 1521.0 1508.2 1506.3 1519.3

140 1515.0 1513.5 1514.4 1520.0 1507.3 1505.7 1517.3

150 1527.9 1513.3 1512.0 1526.6 1512.7 1519.0 1528.0 1506.4 1522.7 1526.7 1505.1 1515.3

160 1511.6 1510.5 1511.1 1518.0 1505.6 1504.3 1513.5

170 1509.8 1509.1 1509.6 1517.1 1504.7 1503.5 1511.6

180 1508.0 1507.7 1508.1 1516.1 1503.7 1502.6 1509.8

190 1506.1 1506.3 1506.6 1515.2 1502.8 1501.7 1508.1

200 1526.2 1504.9 1525.8 1505.2 1514.4 1525.9 1501.9 1520.1 1525.2 1500.9 1506.6

220 1502.5 1502.8 1512.8 1500.0 1499.0 1504.0

240 1500.2 1500.5 1511.2 1498.1 1497.2 1501.7

250 1525.0 1525.1 1524.1 1519.0 1524.7

260 1498.0 1498.5 1509.7 1496.3 1495.4 1499.5

280 1496.1 1496.6 1508.3 1494.6 1493.8 1497.4

300 1523.9 1494.3 1524.2 1495.0 1506.9 1522.8 1493.1 1518.1 1524.0 1492.2 1495.5

350 1503.8 1489.7 1488.5

400 1521.1 1522.4 1522.4 1515.1 1522.4 1485.4

500 1518.4 1520.8 1520.8 1512.3 1520.8 1481.1

600 1514.5 1517.7 1517.7 1508.6 1517.7 1480.0

700 1508.8 1512.2 1512.2 1503.8 1512.2 1480.3

800 1502.9 1506.1 1506.1 1499.2 1506.1 1481.1

900 1497.7 1500.1 1500.1 1495.1 1500.1 1482.3

1000 1493.6 1495.1 1495.1 1492.0 1495.1

1100 1491.0 1491.7 1491.7 1490.0 1491.7

1200 1489.9 1490.0 1490.0 1489.3 1490.0

1300 1490.1 1489.9 1489.9 1489.5 1489.9

1400 1491.1 1490.9 1490.9 1490.5 1490.9

1500 1492.6 1492.6 1492.6 1492.0 1492.6

1750 1495.9 1496.3 1496.3 1495.7 1496.3

2000 1499.0 1499.5 1499.5 1499.2 1499.5

2500 1505.3 1505.7 1505.7 1505.7 1505.7

3000 1512.0 1512.0 1512.0 1512.4 1512.0

4000 1527.6 1527.4 1527.4 1527.8 1527.4

5000 1545.2 1545.2 1545.2 1545.0 1545.2

6000 1562.6 1562.6 1562.6 1561.8 1562.6
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-21

Figure E-11. Final Modeling Regions for the Winter. 

1

2

3

4

5

1
E-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure E-12. Final Modeling Regions for the Spring. 

6

7

8

9

10

6

9
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-23

Figure E-13. Final Modeling Regions for the Summer. 

11

12

13

14

11
E-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure E-14. Final Modeling Regions for the Fall. 

17
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-25

5.2. SHALLOW WATER MODELING FOR MARINE MINERALS AND RENEWABLE 

ENERGY

The characterization of the acoustic propagation conducted in the previous section was designed to 

capture the variability and the general sound field structure produced by large and small airgun arrays 

used in support of oil and gas exploration and development throughout the proposed areas covered by this 

Programmatic EIS. However, acoustic modeling was also conducted to address the potential impacts for 

the active acoustic sound sources (e.g., side-scan sonars, boomers, chirp subbottom profilers, and single 

or multibeam depth sounders) used in conjunction with the other two programs covered by this 

Programmatic EIS, marine minerals and renewable energy. Not only do these programs use different 

acoustic systems than those typically used in oil and gas seismic surveys (i.e., airguns are not expected to 

be used), but these programs are only conducted in water nominally 100 m (328 ft) deep or less. This, 

therefore, limits their activities to the shallowest regions of the continental shelf, which are nominally 

within about 30 nmi (56 km) from the coast.

The location and depth of water used for these programs effectively constitutes a change in several of 

the basic assumptions made for the general characterization of the area including: (1) a significant change 

in the range of water depth covered; (2) a very large reduction in the area covered; (3) a concentration of 

the sources in waters that only allow strong and repeated interactions of the acoustic sound field with the 

ocean surface and bottom; (4) a change in signal type from multiple pulsed to nonpulse; (5) a significant 

change in the typical frequencies used by the systems; and (6) the utilization of systems using higher 

frequencies which allows finer acoustic beam patterns (and in general better special resolution of the 

areas being examined). The result of these differences was that an additional set of acoustic sites were 

added to the original 21 from the general characterization in order to examine and ensure that the 

propagation modeling in the shallow water for these two programs was adequate.

This subsequent shallow water characterization built on the existing work by using the seven shallow 

water sites (i.e., sites # 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 20, and 21 as shown in Table E-6), and selecting two additional 

sites near the original “representative” location for that area. These new sites would therefore have the 

same SVP and propagation characteristics, but the additional stipulation was that these sites be located in 

30 and 100 m (98 and 328 ft) water depths. By examining the propagation in these two water depths for 

each source used, the analysts would ensure that a conservative estimation of the sound propagation field 

(i.e., the larger impacts) was used in the impact analysis and that the potential for local variability in the 

bathymetry would not cause an underestimation of the potential impacts. Subsequent analysis has shown 

that variability of the impacts for all of the sources examined in this Programmatic EIS only varied a few 

percentage points (i.e., <5 percent) for the two water depths examined. Therefore, the use of the larger 

impact values were conservative, but not excessively so.

Table E-7 provides the details of the 14 additional shallow water sites used for this characterization.
E-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table E-7 

 

Summary of Details of the Sites Identified in the Shallow Water Characterization

Modeling

Region Season Propagation Characterization 

Water 

Depth

(m)

Original Region Representative 

Location Sediment 

Grain 

Size 

Index

22 Winter Southern Shallow Water 30 4 30-33N

80-38W Sand -1 

23 Winter Northern Shallow Water 30 5 36-10N

75-15W Sand -1 

24 Spring Bottom Bounce Shallow 

Water 30 9 32-18N79-31W Sand -1 

25 Spring Moderately-ducted (Outer

Banks) Shallow Water 30 10 34-48N75-53W Sand -1 

26 Summer Shallow Water 30 14 36-10N

75-14W Sand -1 

27 Fall Southern Shallow Water 30 20 32-18N

79-31W Sand -1 

28 Fall Northern Shallow Water 30 21 36-10N

75-14W Sand -1 

29 Winter Southern Shallow Water 100 4 30-29N

80-10W Sand -1 

30 Winter Northern Shallow Water 100 5 36-06N

74-50W Sand -1 

31 Spring Bottom Bounce Shallow 

Water 100 9 32-00N79-15W Sand -1 

32 Spring Moderately-ducted (Outer 

Banks) Shallow Water 100 10 34-42N75-37W Sand -1 

33 Summer Shallow Water 100 14 36-06N

74-50W Sand -1 

34 Fall Southern Shallow Water 100 20 32-00N

79-15W Sand -1 

35 Fall Northern Shallow Water 100 21 36-06N

74-50W Sand -1 

Note: These shallow-water modeling regions were re-ordered after the completion of the JASCO propagation modeling and 

may be in a different order than reported by JASCO in Appendix D. This was done to (1) mirror the order of the general 

regions these sites refine and (2) to group the model results by depth. All subsequent impact analyses and reported take 

numbers use this re-ordered numbering assignment.

6. MARINE MAMMAL ABUNDANCES AND DENSITIES

At the time of this analysis, the best available marine mammal density estimates for the Western 

Atlantic Ocean, and specifically for the BOEM Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas were the 

U.S. Navy’s Navy Operating Area (OPAREA) Density Estimates (NODE) database (U.S. Dept. of the 

Navy, 2007b). These density estimates were based on the NMFS-Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

(SEFSC) shipboard surveys conducted between 1994 and 2006, and were derived using a model-based 

approach and statistical analysis of the existing survey data using the model DISTANCE (Buckland et al., 

2001). The outputs from the NODE database are four seasonal surface density plots of the Western 

Atlantic Ocean for each of the marine mammal species occurring there. Figure E-15 is an example of the 

fall surface density plots for the Atlantic spotted dolphins. The resolution or grid size in these plots is 

dependent on the amount of data available for each species. For a fairly common species, like the 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, the grid has a fairly high-resolution (i.e., each displayed grid box is 

approximately 10 nmi2

). Additionally, the actual density values for this species range from 0.0 (very light 

shading) to 3.6 animals per square nmi (darkest shading). The density gradations are specific to each plot, 

but the higher value for each gradation is used in the subsequent analysis. This figure has been overlaid 

with the boundaries of the seven fall acoustic model regions used in this analysis. For each of these seven 

regions, the average density was computed. The resulting densities for each species and all 21 modeling 

regions are presented in Table E-8. 

An examination of Figure E-15 shows that the existing NODE database does not provide data for the 

entire region of this Programmatic EIS; specifically, the most seaward areas of Regions 15, 17, and 

18 show as white (i.e., no data was available). In instances like this, the general known densities were 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-27

extrapolated outward to cover data-less areas. In this instance, the occurrence of this species appears to 

have a strong dependency on the location of the Gulf Stream, even when it moves offshore north of Cape 

Hatteras. Therefore, the extrapolation of the near-zero densities at the eastern edge of the known data 

appears reasonable. For more pelagic species, it is also reasonable to extend their relatively higher 

offshore densities into these areas without data.

It should be noted that while the U.S. Navy was creating the NODE database, NMFS was routinely 

consulted on the process, provided much of the data on which the analysis is based, and reviewed the 

resulting database. Additionally, the Atlantic data were used in the Final EIS for Atlantic Fleet Active 

Sonar Training (U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2008). NMFS is currently developing new cetacean density 

maps that were not available at the time that the modeling for this Programmatic EIS was performed and 

have not become available during the 12-month period following the close of the 90-day public comment 

period. Even though those data were not available for incorporation into either the Draft or the Final 

Programmatic EIS, BOEM will use the CetMap and Underwater Sound Field Working Group

(SoundMap) information for future G&G exploration permit reviews when the new CetMap cetacean 

density data and noise modeling from SoundMap becomes available.
E-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure E-15. Density Plot for Atlantic Spotted Dolphin for Fall Based on the Navy Operating Area Density 

Estimate Database (U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2007b). Density Values Range from 0.0 (Very Light 

Shading) to 3.6 (Darkest Shading) (Animals/nmi2). 
Acoustic Modeling 

and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology

E-29

Table E-8 

 

Marine Mammal Densities for the 21 Modeling Regions (animals/nmi2

) 

(U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2007b)

Modeling Regions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Mysticetes

Minke whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Sei whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Bryde’s whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Blue whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Fin whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001

North Atlantic right 

whale 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0001

Humpback whale 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Odontocetes

Common dolphin 0.0547 0.0653 0.1808 0.0547 0.1808 0.0547 0.0653 0.1808 0.1808 0.0547 0.0547 0.0547 0.1808 0.1808 0.0547 0.1914 0.0547 0.0547 0.0547 0.1808 0.0547

Pygmy killer whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0084 0.0826 0.1505 0.0018 0.0021 0.0025 0.0527 0.1490 0.0878 0.0019 0.0012 0.0527 0.0914 0.0296 0.0527 0.0100 0.0024 0.0839 0.0982 0.0014 0.0017

Long-finned pilot whale 0.0028 0.0207 0.0191 0.0000 0.0005 0.0008 0.0164 0.0213 0.0125 0.0006 0.0004 0.0164 0.0131 0.0052 0.0176 0.0033 0.0008 0.0194 0.0094 0.0005 0.0001

Risso's dolphin 0.0226 0.0451 0.0897 0.0239 0.0664 0.0014 0.0460 0.1104 0.0455 0.0005 0.0006 0.0880 0.1110 0.0447 0.0012 0.0882 0.0009 0.0230 0.0902 0.0236 0.0447

Northern bottlenose 

whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Pygmy sperm whale 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003

Dwarf sperm whale 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin 0.0017 0.0014 0.0008 0.0000 0.0013 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0002 0.0005 0.0001

Fraser’s dolphin 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Sowerby's beaked whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Blainville's beaked 

whale 0.0000 0.0032 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0025 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0021 0.0014 0.0000 0.0021 0.0028 0.0000 0.0021 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000

Gervais' beaked whale 0.0000 0.0032 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0025 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0021 0.0014 0.0000 0.0021 0.0028 0.0000 0.0021 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000

True's beaked whale 0.0000 0.0032 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0025 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0021 0.0014 0.0000 0.0021 0.0028 0.0000 0.0021 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000

Killer whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Melon-headed whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Harbor porpoise 0.0010 0.0008 0.0005 0.0000 0.0008 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0003 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0002 0.0005 0.0001

Sperm whale 0.0002 0.0138 0.0182 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0138 0.0093 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0183 0.0092 0.0001 0.0092 0.0184 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001

False killer whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223

Clymene dolphin 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106

Striped dolphin 0.0269 0.2312 0.2312 0.0269 0.0332 0.0269 0.2092 0.0269 0.0269 0.0269 0.0269 0.0552 0.2092 0.0332 0.0495 0.2658 0.0269 0.0269 0.0269 0.0269 0.0269

Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.0021 0.2070 0.1870 0.2918 0.3168 0.0021 0.1570 0.0880 0.2019 0.2518 0.0021 0.1870 0.1970 0.3168 0.0221 0.2469 0.0021 0.0021 0.0121 0.2669 0.1918

Spinner dolphin 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

Bottlenose dolphin 0.0179 0.0413 0.2829 0.2829 0.0647 0.0179 0.2595 0.2946 0.0296 0.0296 0.0179 0.2595 0.3764 0.2743 0.0296 0.2946 0.0179 0.2829 0.3414 0.1816 0.2283

Cuvier's beaked whale 0.0001 0.0221 0.0222 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0173 0.0198 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0148 0.0100 0.0001 0.0148 0.0197 0.0001 0.0148 0.0197 0.0001 0.0001

Sirenians

West Indian manatee 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Pinnipeds

Hooded seal 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Harbor seal 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Gray seal 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
E-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

7. IMPACT MODELING APPROACHES

7.1. AIM MODELING AND METHODOLOGY

The AIM is a four-dimensional (4D), individual-based, Monte Carlo-based statistical model designed 

to predict the exposure of receivers (e.g., an animal) to any stimulus propagating through space and time. 

The central component of AIM is the animat movement engine, which moves the stimulus source and 

animal receivers through four dimensions (time and space) according to user inputs. AIM uses external 

range-dependent stimulus propagation models (e.g., the Marine Operations Noise Model [MONM] model 

for this modeling effort) and additional propagation models can be integrated to accommodate any class 

of propagation stimuli, including acoustic or explosive signal.

To estimate how changing the acoustic source characteristics affects the acoustic exposure of animals, 

the AIM was utilized (Frankel et al., 2002). The AIM is strongly based on two earlier models: a whale 

movement and tracking model developed for the census of the bowhead whale (Ellison et al., 1987), and 

an underwater acoustic back-scattering model for a moving sound source in an under-ice Arctic 

environment (Bishop et al., 1987). Because the exact positions at which sound sources and animals 

(sound receivers for the purpose of this analysis) will occur during proposed future activities cannot be 

known, multiple runs of realistic predictions are used to bound the range of potential occurrences and 

provide statistical validity to the modeled predictions. The movement and/or behavioral patterns of 

sources and receivers can be modeled based on measured field data, and these patterns can be 

incorporated into the model. Each source and/or receiver is modeled via the “animat” concept, where 

each has parameters that control its speed and direction in three dimensions. In the case of the source, it 

is also imbued with the parameters describing its source operation over time (i.e., SL, signal duration, and 

spectral characteristics). It is also possible to simulate the type of diving pattern that an animal exhibits in 

the real world. Furthermore, the movement of the animat can be programmed to respond to 

environmental factors, such as water depth and sound level (this latter feature was not used in this 

analysis). In this way, species that normally inhabit specific environments can be constrained in the 

model to stay within that habitat.

Once the behavior of the animats has been programmed, the model is run. The run consists of a 

user-specified number of steps forward in time. For each time step, each animat is moved according to 

the rules describing its behavior. For each time step of the model run, the received sound levels at each 

receiver (i.e., each marine mammal) animat are calculated. For this analysis, AIM returns the movement 

patterns of the animats, and the received sound levels are calculated separately using the acoustic 

propagation predictions provided by JASCO (see details in Appendix D) for the different source types at 

different locations.

At the end of each time step, each animat “evaluates” its environment, including its 3D location, the 

time, and the received sound level (if anthropogenic sound is present). If an environmental variable has 

exceeded the user-specified boundary value (e.g., water too shallow), then the animat will alter its course 

to react to the environment. These responses to the environment are entitled “aversions.” There are a 

number of potential aversion variables that can be used to build an animat’s behavioral pattern. For this 

modeling effort they primarily consisted of bathymetric aversions and modeled area boundary aversions.

A separate simulation was created and run for each combination of location, movement pattern, and 

marine mammal species. Marine mammals were simulated by creating animats that were programmed 

with behavioral values describing dive depth, surfacing and dive durations, swimming speed, and course 

change. A minimum and maximum value for each of these parameters was specified. These data were 

extracted from the behavioral database. These data were used to simulate movements and dive 

characteristics of individual animats for each species or species group relative to the simulated vessel 

source tracks at both modeling locations.

After the animats’ movement patterns were defined, the animats were randomly distributed over each 

simulation area. The simulation area was delineated by four boundaries composed of a combination of 

latitude and longitude lines. These boundaries extend at least one degree of latitude or longitude beyond 

the extent of the vessel track to ensure an adequate number of animats in all directions, and to ensure that 

the simulation areas extended beyond the area where substantial behavioral reactions might be 

anticipated. Each simulation had approximately 4,000 animats representing each species. In most cases, 

this represents a higher density of animats in the simulation (0.1 animats/km2

) than occurs in the real 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-31

environment. This “over-population” allowed the calculation of smoother distribution tails and in the 

final analysis, all results were normalized back to actual predicted population counts by species. During 

the AIM modeling, animats were programmed to remain within the simulation area boundaries. This 

behavior was incorporated to prevent the animats from diffusing out of the simulation, the result of which, 

if allowed, would be a systematic decrease in animat density over time. Thus, the simulations modeled 

the animals as a closed population with a high residency factor. This approach is clearly conservative in 

terms of allowing for more prolonged exposures than would be expected from species with a lower 

residency factor.

The AIM simulations created a realistic animal movement track for each animat and were based on 

the best available animal behavioral data. It was assumed that, collectively, the ~4,000 animat tracks 

derived for each simulation (area/species combination) were a reasonable representation of the 

movements of the animals in the population under consideration. Animat positions along each of these 

tracks were converted to polar coordinates (range and bearing) from the source to the receivers. These 

data, along with the depth of the receiver, were used to extract received level estimates from the acoustic 

propagation modeling results provided by JASCO for each source type. Specific to the modeling effort 

for this Programmatic EIS, the source levels, and therefore subsequently the received levels, include the 

embedded corrections for signal pulse length and M-weighting as discussed in Appendix D. For each 

bearing, distance, and depth from the source when it was operating at that site, the received level values 

were expressed as SPLs (rms) with units of dB re 1μ Pa.

Each animat’s received levels were converted back to intensity and summed over the duration of the 

exercise to generate the integrated energy level. These were expressed in terms of dB re 1 μPa2

-sec or 

dB SEL. These exposure metrics were evaluated with the following criteria.

The acoustic threshold criteria, previously discussed in Section 3.0 of this appendix, were then 

applied to the results of the AIM modeling, then the number of animats per species that exceeded each 

criterion was determined. These values were then scaled by the ratio of model-to-real world densities per 

species and corrected for the number of blocks or square kilometers modeled. These scaled values were 

reported as the predicted impact of each survey type, at each location, for each applicable source.

The output results from AIM provided the number of Level A and Level B harassment takes for each 

species, by season, modeled region, and survey type that exceed the specific threshold considered. These 

results will then be corrected to adjust for two parameters in the modeling: (1) the density of 

animats/animals in the modeled area; and (2) actual number of blocks that would be surveyed in each 

modeled region. The animal densities used in the AIM modeling are deliberately kept high to ensure that 

a statistically valid result is obtained. Typically, these “modeled” densities are at least an order of 

magnitude greater than the actual marine mammal density present in the region. Therefore, the modeling 

result is corrected or scaled by the ratio of the actual density divided by the modeled density. Similarly, 

the number of potential impacts is also scaled to derive a “per block survey” level of potential impacts. 

The predicted potential impacts can then be calculated by multiplying this value by the number of surveys 

of that type to be performed in that year, and summing the potential impacts to that species from all 

survey types combined.

7.2. AIM MODELING OF THE SOURCE MOVEMENT

For this assessment, the creation of each modeling simulation began with the creation of a movement 

pattern for the seismic airgun source vessel representing a different survey type. The seismic airgun 

survey types modeled included 2D, 3D, WAZ, VSP, and HRG. (Note that these last two surveys use the 

small array airgun only.) The parameters for each survey type are provided in Table E-9. The column 

labeled “Gridded” indicates whether the source movement pattern included both north-south (vertical) 

and east-west (horizontal) lines of travel (gridded=yes) or just east-west (horizontal) survey lines 

(grided=no).

The marine mineral and renewable energy programs also conduct HRG surveys, but these surveys are 

not expected to use airguns; they would use active acoustic sound sources such as boomer and chirp 

subbottom profilers, side-scan sonars, and multi-beam depth sounders. The details of how these sources 

were modeled in AIM are provided in Table E-10. 
E-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table E-9 

 

Seismic Airgun Source Vessel Parameters for AIM Simulations

Survey Type

Spacing of Horizontal 

and Vertical Lines

(km) 

Gridded? Comments Number of 

Blocks Modeled 

Shot Interval 

(seconds) 

2D 2.0 x (NA) No 5 x 5 = 25 15

3D 1.0 x 1.0 Yes 2 x 2 = 4 15

Wide Azimuth 

(WAZ) 1.0 x 1.0 Yes Use multiples of 3D surveys

2 x 2 = 4 15 (per survey)

Vertical Seismic Profile

(VSP) 1.0 x 1.0 Yes Use 3D surveys 1 x 2 = 2 15 

High-Resolution

Geophysical (HRG) 0.08 x NA No Uses small airgun 1 x 1 = 1 variable 

The marine mineral and renewable energy programs also conduct HRG surveys, but those surveys are 

not expected to use airguns; they would use active acoustic sound sources such as boomer and chirp 

subbottom profilers, side-scan sonars, and multibeam depth sounders. The details of how these sources 

were modeled in AIM are provided in Table E-10.

Table E-10

 

Marine Mineral and Renewable Resource Source Vessel Parameters for AIM Simulations 

Survey Type Area Modeled

(km) 

Spacing of Horizontal and 

Vertical Lines

(km)

Gridded? Comments 

Marine Mineral Exploration 1.8 x 1.8 0.03 x (NA) No Multiple electromechanical 

sources (no airguns)

Marine Mineral Exploration 1.8 x 1.8 0.2 x (NA) No Multiple electromechanical 

sources (no airguns)

Renewable Energy Hazard 3.5 x 3.5 0.15 x 0.15 Yes Multiple electromechanical 

sources (no airguns)

Renewable Energy Exploration 2.1 x 2.0 0.03 x 0.15 Yes Multiple electromechanical 

sources (no airguns)

7.3. AIM MODELING OF THE ANIMAL MOVEMENT

7.3.1. Movement

Animals move through four dimensions: 3D space plus time. Several movement parameters are used 

in the model to produce a movement pattern that simulates real animal movements. A typical dive pattern 

is shown in Figure E-16. It consists of two phases: a shallow respiratory sequence, followed by a deeper, 

longer dive.

Figure E-16. Typical Dive Pattern.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-33

These two phases are represented in the model with the values as input into the box in Figure E-17. 

Figure E-17. Parameters Used to Specify the Typical Dive Pattern Shown in Figure E-16. 

The top row has the values for the shallow, respiratory dives. In this case, the animal dives from the 

surface to a maximum depth of 5 m. The second row describes the second phase of the dive. In this 

phase the animal dives to a depth between 50 and 75 m (164 and 246 ft). In this example, the animal 

spends time at both 60 and 50 m (197 and 164 ft) before surfacing. The pattern then repeats.

The horizontal component of the course is handled with the “heading variance” term. It allows the 

animal to turn up to a certain number of degrees at each movement step. In this case, the animal can 

change course 20 degrees on the surface, but only 10 degrees underwater. This example is for a narrowly 

constrained set of variables, appropriate for a migratory animal.

7.3.2. Heading Variance

There are few published data that summarize marine mammal movement in terms of heading 

variance, or the amount of course change per unit time. The default setting allows the course to deviate 

between 0 and 30 degrees per min.

7.3.3. Aversions

In addition to movement patterns, the animats can be programmed to avoid certain environmental 

situations. For example, this option can be used to constrain an animal to a particular depth regime. The 

following example (Figure E-18) constrains the animal to waters between 2,000 and 5,000 m (6,562 and 

16,404 ft) deep. One modification was made for these simulations in the animal’s habitat. Normally 

deep-water species were allowed to move into waters as shallow as 100 m (328 ft). 

Figure E-18. Example Showing the Aversions to Limit an Animat to Waters between 2,000 and 5,000 m

(6,562 and 16,404 ft). 

7.3.4. Species Behavior Parameters

The specific animal behavioral parameters that were used in this analysis are provided below. Where 

the “Surfacing/Dive Angle” column is empty, there were no meaningful data available so, 75o was used as 

a default value. Under the “Speed Distribution” column, “Normal” indicates that the distribution of speed 

values between the limits was normally distributed. Under the “Depth Limit/Reaction Angle” column, 

the first number indicates the minimum depth limit in meters, and “reflect” indicates that if an animat 

moves to that shallow water limit, it will move away from the shallow water and back into deeper water.
E-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

7.3.4.1. Minke Whale

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Minke 

Whale 1/3 75o 20/100 2/6 Surface 45Dive 20 1/18 Gamma (3.25,2) 10/reflect 

Surface Time

A mean surface time of 1.72 min with a range of 0.63-2.35 min was reported for minke whales by

Stern (1992). 

Dive Depth

Dive depths for minke whales were inferred from other species, however reduced in maximum depth

because minkes are likely to be pelagic feeders and feed on species found near the surface (Olsen and 

Holst, 2001). 

Dive Time

The mean dive time for minke whales reported by Stern (1992) was 4.43 (±2.7) min. Dive times 

measured off Norway ranged from approximately 1-6 min (Joyce et al., 1989). Dive times also show 

small diel and seasonal variability (Stockin et al., 2001), but the variability is small enough to be 

considered not significant for AIM modeling. Dive times were non-normal, with dives of durations less 

than 1 min comprising at least 45 percent of all dives (Øien et al., 1990).

Speed

The mean speed value for minke whales in Monterey Bay was 4.5 (±3.45) knots (kn) 

(8.3 ±6.4 km/hr) (Stern, 1992). Satellite tagging studies have shown movement of up to 79 km/day

(49 mi/day) (3.3 km/hr [2.1 mi/hr]). Minke whales being pursued by killer whales were able to swim at 

15-30 km/hr (Ford et al., 2005). 

A gamma function was fit to the available speed data. The modal speed of this function is 4.5 km/hr 

(2.8 mi/hr), matching the Stern (1992) data, and has a maximum of 18 km/hr (11 mi/hr), somewhat less 

than the maximum speed achievable (30 km/hr [19 mi/hr]), observed during predation. “Cruising” 

minkes have been reported at 3.25 m/s (10.66 ft/s) (Blix and Folkow, 1995). 

Habitat

Minke whales in Monterey Bay were reported to be in a median depth of 48.6 m (159.4 ft) (Stern, 

1992). They are known to move into very shallow water as well as deep oceanic basins. The 10-m 

(33-ft) limit and reflection aversion are intended to let minkes roam freely but to stay off the beach.

Group Size

A mean group size of 1.6 individuals was reported for minke whales in the Antarctic (Blix and 

Folkow, 1995). 

Residency

Foraging minke whales have been shown to exhibit small-scale site fidelity (Morris and Tscherter, 

2006). Therefore, course change parameters for foraging minke whales should be set to be variable to 

allow for small net movements.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-35

7.3.4.2. Sei/Bryde’s Whale

A paucity of data exists for sei and Bryde’s whales. Data for the two species have been pooled to 

derive parameters for both species.

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Min/Max Speed 

(km/hr)

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Sei/Bryde’s

Whale 1/1 90/75o 10/40 (80)50/267 (20) 2/11 30/300 (50%)90/300 (50%) 1/20 5/1

Surface Time

No direct data for these species were available; fin whale values were used. 

Dive Depth

A limited number of Bryde’s whales have been tagged with time-depth recorders (TDRs) (Alves et 

al., 2010). Shallow dives less than 40 m (131 ft) were recorded 85 percent of the time, while deep dives 

occurred 15 percent of the time. The maximum dive depth reported was 267 m (876 ft). 

Two distinct dive types were noted for Bryde’s whales. The whales were observed to make a long 

series of shallow dives of less than 40 m (131 ft) until 1.5 hr before sunset. During the night, sequential 

deep dives took place, with foraging lunges recorded during about half of these nighttime dives.

Dive Time

Sei whale dive times ranged between 0.75 and 11 min, with a mean duration of 1.5 min (Schilling et 

al., 1992). Most of the dives were short in duration, presumably because they were associated with 

surface or near-surface foraging. The same paper reported surface times that ranged between 2 s and 

15 min. The maximum dive time reported for two Bryde’s whales was 9.4 min (Alves et al., 2010) with 

mean durations of 4-6 min.

Heading Variance 

Observations of foraging sei whales showed that they had a very high reorientation rate, frequently 

resulting in minimal net movement (Schilling et al., 1992). 

Speed

A tagging study found an overall speed of advance for sei whales was 4.6 km/hr (2.9 mi/hr) (Brown, 

1977). The highest speed reported for a Bryde’s whale was 20 km/hr (Cummings, 1985). A Bryde’s 

whale being attacked by killer whales traveled ~9 km in 94 min, with most of the travel occurring in first 

50 min, producing an estimated speed of 10.8 km/hr (6.7 mi/hr) (Silber et al., 1990). The maximum 

speed of sei whales reported from a satellite tracking study was 7.6 m/s (25 ft/s), although the distribution 

of speeds was highly skewed toward lower values (Olsen et al., 2009). The speed parameters used in 

AIM are 0-20 km/hr (0-12.4 mi/hr), using a gamma distribution with alpha and beta parameters of 5 and 

1. These values produce the following distribution, which covers the reported range of speed (Olsen et 

al., 2009) and approximated the mean value reported by Brown (1977).

Habitat

Sei whales are known to feed on shallow banks such as Stellwagen Bank (Kenney and Winn, 1986). 

Therefore, sei and Bryde’s whales are allowed to move into shallow water.
E-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Group Size

Sei whales in the Gulf of Maine were seen in groups of 1-6 animals, with a mean group size of 

1.8 whales (Schilling et al., 1992). Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of California were seen in groups of 

1-2 animals, with a mean size of 1.2 whales (Silber et al., 1994). 

7.3.4.3. Blue Whale

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface 

Time (min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Blue Whale 

(non-foraging) 1/2 75o 20/100 2/18 30/300 (50%)90/300 (50%) 3/14 Norm. 100/reflect 

Blue Whale 

(foraging) 1/2 75o 20/100 (50)100/300 (50)

2/18

4/18

30/300

90/90 3/14 Norm. 100/reflect 

Surface Time

Surface intervals for one of four satellite-tagged blue whales ranged from 7-90 s, with a mean of 48 s. 

Intervals >60 s were not reported for the other three individuals, indicating that the surface time was short

(Lagerquist et al., 2000). 

Dive Depth

Croll et al. (2001) reported a mean dive depth of 140 (±46.01) m (459 [±151] ft) for non-foraging 

animals, while foraging whales had a mean dive depth of 67.6 (±51.46) m (221.8 [±168.8] ft). 

Satellite-tagged whales off California had a maximum dive depth of 192 m (630 ft) (Lagerquist et al., 

2000). The distribution of dive depths was bimodal (note that this is reported from one animal). The 

maximum dive depth reported for a series of blue whales with “crittercams” attached to them off 

California and Mexico was 293 m (961 ft) (Calambokidis et al., 2008). Many of these animals had deep 

feeding dives, with lunges occurring 200-260 m (656-853 ft). Notably, one animal transitioned from deep 

feeding dives of decreasing depth as the sun set to shallow non-feeding dives, which indicated that there 

may be a diurnal character to some blue whale behavior.

Separate animats for foraging and non-foraging blue whales were created. Foraging animats will 

have a 50:50 distribution between deep dives (200-300 m [656-984 ft]) and shallower dives (20-100 m 

[66-328 ft]). 

Dive Time

Mean dive times of 4.3, 7.8, 4.9 5.7, 10, and 7 min have been reported for blue whales (Laurie, 1933; 

Doi, 1974; Lockyer, 1976; Croll et al., 1998; Croll et al., 2001). The best estimate of the maximum dive 

time is 14.7 min (Croll et al., 2001), although a maximum time of 30 min was reported by (Laurie, 1933). 

The longest dive reported for satellite-tagged whales was 18 min, although the mean dive time for all 

whales was 5.8 (±1.5) min (Lagerquist et al., 2000). 

Speed

Dive descent rates of 1.26 m/s (4.13 ft/s) have been recorded (Williams et al., 2000). A mean surface 

speed of 1.25 m/s (4.10 ft/s) with a maximum speed of 2.0 m/s (6.6 ft/s) was reported from satellite tags

(Mate et al., 1999), although satellite data tend to smooth the track and therefore underestimate speed. A 

second satellite tag study found straight-line speed (under) estimates from 1.3-14.2 km/hr (0.8-8.8 mi/hr). 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-37

Group Size

Blue whales in the eastern tropical Pacific had a modal group size of one, although pods of two were 

somewhat common (Reilly and Thayer, 1990). The mean size of blue whale (B. m. brevicauda) groups

off Australia was 1.55 (Gill, 2002). 

7.3.4.4. Fin Whale

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Fin Whale 1/1 75o 20/250 (90)

250/470 (10)

5/8

1/20 20 1/16 Norm. 30/reflect 

Surface Time

Remarkably good data for surface times exist for fin whales. A log survivorship analysis of all 

inter-blow intervals was used to determine an inflection point of 28 and 31 s between surface and dive 

activity for feeding and non-feeding animals, respectively (Kopelman and Sadove, 1995). The mean 

surface duration for fin whales without boats present off Maine was 54.63 s (standard deviation 

[SD]=59.61) while dive times were 200.84 s (SD=192.91) (Stone et al., 1992). 

Dive Depth

Foraging fin whales had mean dive depths of 97.9 ±32.59 m, while traveling fin whales had mean 

dive depths of 59.3 ±29.67 m (Croll et al., 2001). Migrating fin whales were determined to have a 

maximal dive depth of 364 m (1,194 ft), (Charif et al., 2002). Fin whales in the Mediterranean Sea 

typically dove to ~100 m (~382 ft) and occasionally dove to 470 m (1,542 ft) or more (Panigada et al., 

1999), however these are unusually deep dives. The animats here model the more typical dive pattern 

90 percent of the time. Foraging fin whales off California had a mean maximum dive depth of 248 m 

(814 ft) (Goldbogen et al., 2006). Based on this study, the most frequent AIM dive depth is extended to 

250 m. 

Dive Time

Foraging fin whales had mean dive times of 6.3 ±1.53 min, while traveling fin whales had mean dive 

times of 4.2 ±1.67 min (Croll et al., 2001). The maximum dive time observed was 16.9 min. Fin whales 

off the east coast of the U.S. were observed to have mean dive times of 2.9 min. Ranges for feeding 

animals ranged from 29-1,001 s, while non-feeding animals had longer dives between 32 and 1,212 s

(Kopelman and Sadove, 1995). Panigada et al. (1999) found that shallow (<100 m [<328 ft]) dives had a 

mean dive time of 7.1 min, while deeper dives had dive times of 11.7 and 12.6 min. Fin whales foraging 

on Jeffrey’s Ledge in the Gulf of Maine had mean dive times of 5.83-5.89 min (Ramirez et al., 2006). 

Speed

Watkins (1981) reported a mean speed of 10 km/hr (6 mi/hr) ranging from 1-16 km/hr (0.6-10 mi/hr)

with bursts of 20 km/hr (12 mi/hr) reported. Mean descent speeds of 3.2 m/s (10.5 ft/s) (SD=1.82) and 

ascent speeds of 2.1 m/s (6.9 ft/s) (SD=0.82) have been reported from fin whales in the Mediterranean 

(Panigada et al., 1999). 

Habitat

Fin whales are found feeding on shallow banks and in bays (Woodley and Gaskin, 1996) as well as in 

the abyssal plains of the ocean (Watkins, 1981). Fin whales are allowed to move into shallow water in 

AIM, with a 30-m (98-ft) inshore limit to keep them out of the very shallow waters.
E-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Group Size

Mean group size for fin whales in the Gulf of Mexico was 5.7 whales, with group size ranging from 

1-50 whales (Silber et al., 1994). Mean group size in the Mediterranean Sea over a number of years was 

1.75 animals (Panigada et al., 2005). 

7.3.4.5. North Atlantic Right Whale

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/

Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m)

Min/Max

(percentage)

Min/ 

Max 

Dive 

Time 

(min)

Heading 

Variance 

(angle/time)

Min 

/Max 

Speed 

(km/h)

Speed 

Distribution

Depth Limit/ 

Reaction 

Angle 

Right 

Whale

Feeder

4/5 75 113/130 (50)

113/130 (50)

11/13 

11/13 

90/90 

30/90 3/6 Normal 5/reflect

Right 

Whale 

Migrator

1/1 75 10/200 (10)

10/35 (90)

1/10 

1/7 

90/60 

30/300 1/8 Normal 5/reflect

Right 

Whale 

Breeding

1/5 75 10/50 (50)

10/50 (50)

5/10 

5/10 

30/300 

90/90 0/5 Normal 5/reflect

Surface Time

Mean surface time for right whales reported by Winn et al. (1995) was less than 60 s; therefore, a 

1-min surface time was used for AIM for migrating whales. 

Mean surface intervals for wintering right whales reported for shallow and deep dives was 0.91 and 

2.44 min, respectively (Nousek McGregor, 2010). Thus, the surface interval for wintering right whales 

was set to vary between 1 and 3 min.

Dive Depth

Right whale feeding dives in the northwest Atlantic were characterized by rapid descent to depths 

between 80 and 175 m (262 and 574 ft). The median depth was 119 m (390 ft), with a 90 percent

confidence interval between 113 and 130 m (371 and 427 ft) (Baumgartner and Mate, 2003). This 

90 percent confidence range was used for the dive depth range. In a nearby area, right whales dove to 

depths between approximately 120 and 180 m (394 and 591 ft) (Nowacek et al., 2004). 

Wintering right whales are most often found in shallow water. The observed distribution of dive 

depths was bimodal, showing a separation between dives less than and greater than 10 m (33 ft). The 

overall mean was 7.96 m (26.1 ft), approximately 9.8 m (32.1 ft) above the seafloor (Nousek McGregor, 

2010). Therefore, the range of dive depths for AIM animats was set to vary between 2 and 25 m (6.6 and 

82 ft). 

Dive Time

The median dive time for foraging right whales was 12.65 min, with a 95 percent confidence interval 

of 11.4-12.9 min (Baumgartner and Mate, 2003). 

Mean dive durations for wintering right whales were 1.83 min for shallow dives and 6.58 min for 

deep dives (Nousek McGregor, 2010). Therefore, the AIM animat dive times were allowed to vary 

between 1 and 8 min.

Speed

Descent speed of diving right whales had a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.3-1.5 m/s (4.3-4.5 ft/s)

while the ascent speed was 1.4-1.7 m/s (4.6-5.6 ft/s) (Baumgartner and Mate, 2003). Radio-tagged 

whales that remained in the Bay of Fundy had a mean speed of 1.1 km/hr, while those that left the bay 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-39

had a mean speed of 3.5 km/hr (2.2 mi/hr) (Mate et al., 1997). Note that radio tagging tends to 

underestimate whale speed because the data greatly smooth the recorded course of the animal. 

Habitat

Northern right whales are currently found in the northwest Atlantic Ocean and the North Pacific. In 

the North Atlantic, they are found offshore eastern Canada and the U.S. northeast coast during the 

summer foraging season. They migrate along the coast to a breeding area in the shallow waters offshore 

of Florida and Georgia. It is believed that a portion of the population migrates to an undiscovered 

location.

Group Size

The group size of surface active groups (SAGs) in the Bay of Fundy ranged from 2-15 animals (Parks 

and Tyack, 2005). 

7.3.4.6. Humpback Whale (Feeding)

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Feeding 

Humpback 

Whale

1/2 75o 10/60 (20)40/100 (75) 

100/150 (5)

5/10 

90/300

90/90 

90/90

1/8 Norm. (Min = 100)/ 

reflect 

Surface Time

Approximately 65 percent of all surface times for humpback whales observed in Alaska were 2 min 

in length or less (Dolphin, 1987a). Surface times in Hawaii are similar with the exception of surface 

active groups (Frankel, pers. obs.). 

Dive Depth

Humpback whale dive depths have been measured on the feeding grounds. Seventy-five percent of 

their dives were to 40 m (131 ft) or less with a maximum depth of 150 m (492 ft) (Dolphin, 1988). Dive 

depth appears to be determined by prey distribution. Whales in this study were primarily foraging upon 

euphausiids. There is also a strong correlation of dive depth and dive time and is described by the 

following equation (Dolphin, 1987a): 

Time (s) = 0.52 * depth (m) +3.95, r2 = 0.93

Feeding humpbacks off Kodiak Alaska had a mean maximum depth of 106.2 m (348 ft) with 

62 percent of the dives occurring between 92 and 120 m (302 and 394 ft) with a maximum of ~160 m 

(~348 ft) (Witteveen et al., 2008). The humpbacks appeared to be feeding largely on capelin and pollock.

There are strong differences in the data between these two studies. This difference may reflect the 

distribution of prey rather than behavioral abilities of the whales.

Dive Time

The maximum of the continuous portion of the distribution of dive times was 15 min (Dolphin, 

1987a). The distribution was skewed toward shorter dives. Several dive steps can be programmed in 

AIM to capture this variability.
E-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Heading Variance 

Satellite tracking of feeding humpback whales in the Southern Ocean showed very erratic travel, and 

animals frequently remained in a specific area for up to a week at a time. There were periodic movements 

between feeding areas (Dalla Rosa et al., 2008). Therefore, the heading variance for feeding humpbacks 

was set relatively high, for 80 percent of the time. Twenty percent of the time the heading variance was

set as low to simulate movement between feeding areas.

Speed

Mean speeds for humpbacks are near 4.5 km/hr (2.8 mi/hr). The measured range is 2-11.4 km/hr 

(1-7 mi/hr) (excluding stationary pods) (Gabriele et al., 1996). Feeding humpbacks in the Southern 

Ocean had mean measured speeds between 2.26 and 4.03 km/hr (1.4 and 2.5 mi/hr) (Dalla Rosa et al., 

2008). These values were derived from short segments of satellite tracking data; therefore, they are likely 

underestimates of speed.

Ascent rates during dives range from 1.5-2.5 m/s (4.8-8.2 ft) while descent rates range between 

1.25 and 2 m/s (4.1 and 6.6 ft/s) (Dolphin, 1987b). The mean speed for all pod types in Glacier Bay was 

3.31 km/hr (1 mi/hr) (Baker and Herman, 1989). 

Habitat

Migrating humpbacks swim both along the coast (California population) as well as through the 

abyssal plains. Humpbacks swim along coastal regions are known to swim further offshore than gray 

whales. Therefore, the minimum depth for this species has been set at 100 m (328 ft). 

Group Size

Ninety-six percent of 27,252 pods in the Gulf of Maine were composed of 1-3 animals with a modal 

size of one adult (Clapham, 1993). 

7.3.4.7. Humpback Whale (Winter Grounds: Singer)

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Humpback

Singer 1/1 75o 10/25 5/25 20 0/1 Norm. >1,000/reflect 

Surface Time

Singers typically surface for <1 min. Singers in the Caribbean blew between 2 and 8 times per 

surfacing (Chu, 1988). 

Dive Depth

Humpback singers have relatively shallow depths.

Dive Time

Dive times typically range from 10-25 min. Observations of 20 singers in the Caribbean found dive 

times between five and 20 min in duration (Chu, 1988). 

Heading Variance 

The heading variance is set very low for singers. While traveling very slow to stationary, they tend to 

swim along the coast.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-41

Speed

Most singers are stationary although very few move at high speeds.

Habitat

On the wintering grounds most singers are found within the 100-fathom contour, but a few are found 

in deeper waters.

Group Size

The vast majority of singers are found alone. The largest pod reported containing a singer was four 

animals (Frankel et al., 1995). 

7.3.4.8. Humpback Whale (Migrating)

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Migrating 

Humpback 

Whale

1/2 75o 10/40 5/10 10 2/10 Norm. (Min =100)/ 

reflect 

Dive Depth

Humpback whale dive depths have been measured on the feeding grounds. Seventy-five percent of 

their dives were to 40 m (131 ft) or less (Dolphin, 1988). It is likely that migrating animals would also 

predominantly dive to these shallow depths. Humpbacks foraging off California had a mean maximum 

dive depth of 156 m (512 ft) (Goldbogen et al., 2008). 

Dive Time

Surface times range between 1 and 2 min while dive times range between 5 and 10 min (Gabriele et 

al., 1996). Foraging humpbacks off California had mean dive times of 7.8 ±2.0 min (Goldbogen et al., 

2008). 

Heading Variance 

The heading variance was set very low for migrating animals. Most non-competitive group breeding 

animals also have linear travel. Migrating humpbacks swam very close to magnetic north from Hawaii 

with very little deviation (Mate et al., 1998). 

Speed

Mean speeds for humpbacks are near 4.5 km/hr (2.8 mi/hr). The measured range is 2-11.4 km/hr 

(1.2-7.1 mi/hr) (excluding stationary pods) (Gabriele et al., 1996). Satellite tracked migrating humpback 

whales moved at a minimum of 150 km/day (93 mi/day) (6.25 km/hr [3.9 mi/hr]) for a mother and calf 

pod, while another two whales moved 110 km/day (68 mi/day) (4.5 km/hr [2.8 mi/hr]). Humpbacks off 

Australia were estimated to migrate at a mean speed of 8 km/hr (5 mi/hr), with a range between 4.8 and

14.2 km/hr (3 and 9 mi/hr) (Chittleborough, 1953). More recent studies of Australian humpbacks found a 

mean northern migration speed of 5.47 km/hr (3.4 mi/hr), while the southern migration speed had a mean 

of 5.02 km/hr (3.12 mi/hr) for non-calf pods, while calf pods had mean speeds of 5.03 and 4.25 km/hr 

respectively (Chaudry, 2006). 
E-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Habitat

Migrating humpbacks swim both along the coast (California population) as well as through the 

abyssal plains. Humpbacks swim along coastal regions are known to swim further offshore than gray 

whales. Therefore, the minimum depth for this species has been set at 100 m (328 ft). Non-calf pods 

migrating off Australian had a mean offshore distance of 3,177 m (10,423 ft) during the northern 

migration and 2,560 m (8,399 ft) during the southern migration. Calf pods migrated “significantly” closer 

inshore (Chaudry, 2006). 

7.3.4.9. Common Dolphin

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Common 

Dolphin 1/1 75o 50/200 1/5 30 2/9 Norm. 100-1,000/ reflect

Dive Depth

Dive depths are reported to be between 50 and 200 m (164 and 656 ft) (Evans, 1994). 

Dive Time

The maximum dive time reported was five min (Heyning and Perrin, 1994). 

Speed

The maximum sustainable speed for common dolphins was measured at 2.5 m/s (8.2 ft/s) (9 km/hr 

[5.6 mi/hr]) (Hui, 1987). 

Habitat

Common dolphins off the northeast United States were concentrated along the shelf edge between 

100 and 200 m (328 and 656 ft) (Selzer and Payne, 1988). In the Mediterranean common dolphins were 

found in waters between 25 and 1,300 m (82 and 4,265 ft) deep with 95 percent of the animals in water 

between 247 and 326 m (810 and 1,070 ft) (Cañadas et al., 2002). 

Group Size

Common dolphins in the Gulf of California were found in groups of 4-1,100 animals, with a mean 

size of 254.3 dolphins (Silber et al., 1994). Off the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica, the mean group size was 

220.67 (SD=220.6) (May-Collado et al., 2005). 

7.3.4.10. Blackfish: False Killer Whale, Pygmy Killer Whale, Melon-headed Whale

Studies describing the movements and diving patterns of these animals are rare and sparse. 

Therefore, they have been combined into a single “blackfish” category.

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

False/Pygmy 

killer whales 1/1 75o 5/50 (80)50/100 (20) 2/12 30 2/22.4 Gamma. 200/reflect 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-43

Surface Time

Individual melon-headed whales spend less than one min on the surface although the group may 

remain near the surface for long periods of time (Frankel, pers. obs.). 

Dive Depth

The maximum dive depth of a single false killer whale off the Madeira Islands was 72 m (236 ft). 

Most of the time was spent at depths deeper than 20 m (66 ft) and the dives were V-shaped (Alves et al., 

2006). Three false killer whales in Hawaii had shallow dives as well with maximum depths of 22, 52, 

and 53 m (72, 171, and 174 ft) (Ligon and Baird, 2001). It should be noted that these animals were 

feeding on fish.

Dive Time

No directly measured data were available for “blackfish” whales so data from pilot whales was used 

for dive time.

Speed

Maximum speed recorded for false killer whales was 28.8 km/hr (17.9 mi/hr) (Rohr et al., 2002), 

although the typical cruising speed is typically 20-24 percent less than the maximum speed (Fish and 

Rohr, 1999). This “typical” maximum of 22 km/hr (14 mi/hr) was used as the maximum speed for AIM.

Habitat

False killer whales off the Madeira Islands were found in water depths from 900 to 2,000 m 

(900 to 6,562 ft) (Alves et al., 2006). 

Group Size

False killer whales in the Gulf of Mexico had group sizes between 20 and 35 (mean=27.5, standard 

error [SE]=7.5, n=2) (Mullin et al., 2004). False killer whales off Costa Rica had a mean group size of 

36.16 (±52.38) (May-Collado et al., 2005). 

7.3.4.11.Shortfin and Longfin Pilot Whales

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Pilot 

Whales 1/1 75o 5/100 (80)10/1,000 (20)

1/10

5/21 30 2/12 Norm. 200/reflect 

Surface Time

A rehabilitated long-finned pilot whale in the North Atlantic was equipped with a satellite tag and a 

TDR. The log survivorship plot of dive time from this animal had an inflection point at about 40 s

(Mate et al., 2005). The authors did not feel that this qualified as a breakpoint to separate surface and 

dive behavior. However, it does suggest that most surface intervals are less than one min.

Dive Depth

Long-finned pilot whales in the Mediterranean were observed to display considerable diurnal 

variation in their dive depths. During the day, they never dove to more than 16 m (52 ft). However, at 

night, they dove to maximum depths of 360 and 648 m (1,181 and 2,126 ft) with mean depth of 308 and 

416 m (1,011 and 1,365 ft) (Baird et al., 2002). Rehabilitated long-finned pilot whales dove to 312 m 
E-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

(1,024 ft) on Georges Bank which has a depth of 360 m (1,181 ft), so these values should not be taken as 

the maximum. The distribution of dive depths was also skewed toward lower values (Nawojchik et al., 

2003). 

Short-finned pilot whales off the Canary Islands had maximum depth of 1,019 m (3,343 ft) (Aguilar 

Soto et al., 2008). The majority of these were to depths of less than 100 m (328 ft) while the remainder of 

depths were approximately evenly distributed between 100 and 1,000 m (328 and 3,281 ft). 

Dive Time

Baird et al. (2002) reported on dives of two individual long-finned pilot whales and dive times varied

between 2.14 and 12.7 min during the night. During the day animals spent all of their time in the top 16 

m (52 ft). 

A rehabilitated long-finned pilot whale in the North Atlantic had dive times between 1 and 6 min

(Mate et al., 2005). Other rehabilitated long-finned whales were reported to dive to at least 25 min 

although the distribution is skewed toward shorter dives with most lasting about two min (Nawojchik et 

al., 2003). Long-finned pilot whales off the Faroe Islands never dove longer than 18 min

(Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2002). 

Short-finned pilot whales off the Canary Islands had maximum foraging dive times of 21 min

(Aguilar Soto et al., 2008). They demonstrated a near-linear relationship between dive depth and dive 

duration. Therefore shallow dives had times ranging between 1 and 10 min, while deep dives were set to 

have times between 5 and 21 min. 

Speed

Shane (1995) reported a minimum speed of 2 km/hr (1.24 mi/hr) and a maximum of 12 km/hr 

(7.5 mi/hr) for pilot whales. During the day in the Mediterranean, animals slowly swam, with mean 

values for two animals of 2.85 and 3.18 km/hr (1.8 and 2 mi/hr), while at night, they swam faster at 

6.83 and 5.48 km/hr (4.24 and 3.4 mi/hr) (Baird et al., 2002). A single satellite tracked long-finned pilot 

whale had a minimum speed of 1.4 km/hr (0.9 mi/hr) (Mate et al., 2005). The speed of traveling pilot 

whales (G. scammoni) was estimated at 4-5 kn (Norris and Prescott, 1961, cited in Mate et al., 2005). 

Vertical dive speeds of three TDR tagged long-finned pilot whales ranged from 0.79-3.38 m/s

(2.6-11.1 ft/s) with a mean of 1.99 m/s (6.5 ft/s) (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2002).

Habitat

The minimum water depth for pilot whales in the Gulf of Mexico was 246 m (807 ft) (Davis et al., 

1998), while off of Spain, they preferred water deeper than 600 m (1,969 ft) (Cañadas et al., 2002). 

Group Size

Short-finned pilot whales in the Gulf of Mexico ranged in group size between 5 and 50 (mean=20.4, 

SE=3.6, n=11) (Mullin et al., 2004). Off the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica the mean group size of pilot 

whales was 14.22 individuals (SD=12.06) (May-Collado et al., 2005). 

7.3.4.12. Risso’s Dolphin

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Risso's 

Dolphin 1/3 75o 150/1,000 2/12 30 2/12 Norm. 150/reflect 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-45

Dive Depth

Dive depths of 150-1,000 m (492-3,281 ft) were inferred from the squid-eating habits of Risso’s 

dolphins and from similar species.

Dive Time

No data on dive times could be found. The values for blackfish, which have a similar ecological 

niche, were used. 

Speed

Risso’s dolphins off Santa Catalina Island were reported to have speeds ranging between 2 and 

12 km/hr (1.24 and 7.5 mi/hr) (Shane, 1995). 

Habitat

Risso’s dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico were seen in water deeper than 150 m (492 ft), most often 

observed between 300 and 750 m (984 and 2,461 ft) (Davis et al., 1998). Off Chile Risso’s dolphins were 

seen in waters deeper than 1,000 m (3,281 ft) (Olavarria et al., 2001), and off Spain they were found 

deeper than 600 m (1,969 ft) (Cañadas et al., 2002). In all cases this association seems to be driven by the 

local oceanographic upwelling conditions that increase primary productivity.

Group Size

In the Pacific, group sizes were measured between 1 and 220 animals with a geometric mean of 10.7. 

An estimated 76.4 percent of the groups contained fewer than 20 animals (Leatherwood et al., 1980). 

Group sizes in the Gulf of Mexico ranged between 2 and 78 animals, with a mean of 12.7 (SE=2.0, n=39)

(Mullin et al., 2004). Mean group size off the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica was 11.57 (SD=9.64)

(May-Collado et al., 2005). 

7.3.4.13.Large Beaked Whales

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Berardius 1/7 75o 800/1,453 (90)

50/200 (10)

48/68

12/70

30/300 (50)

90/300 (50) 3/6 Norm. 253/reflect 

Surface Time

Surface times in Arnoux’s beaked whales ranged from 1.2-6.8 min (Hobson and Martin, 1996). 

Sowerby’s beaked whales had surface times of 1-2 min, during which they would blow 6-8 times (Hooker 

and Baird, 1999a). 

Dive Depth

Minimum and maximum dive depths measured for a beaked whale were 120 and 1,453 m (394 and 

4,767 ft), respectively (Hooker and Baird, 1999b). Ziphius tagged off the Canary Islands had foraging 

dives between 824 and 1,267 m (2,703 and 4,157 ft), while Blainsville’s beaked whales dove to depths 

between 655 and 975 m (2,149 and 3,199 ft) (Johnson et al., 2004). 

Northern bottlenose whales performed shallow dives with a range of 41-332 m (135-1,089 ft) (n=33), 

while deep dives ranged from 493-1,453 m (1,617-4,767 ft) (n=23). Dive depth and dive duration were 

strongly correlated (Hooker and Baird, 1999b). 
E-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Blainsville’s beaked whales in Hawaii performed dives to mid-water depth (100-600 m 

[328-1,969 ft]) approximately six times more frequently than at night. Dives deeper than 800 m (2,625 ft) 

had no diurnal difference (Baird et al., 2008). 

Dive Time

Minimum and maximum dive times recorded for beaked whales were 16 and 70.5 min, respectively

(Hooker and Baird, 1999b). Dives ranging between 12 and (at least) 28 min for Sowerby’s beaked 

whales were recorded in the Gully in Canada (Hooker and Baird, 1999a). Modal dive times between 

35-65 min (mean=46.4 min, SD=13.1), with a maximum dive time of at least 70 min, were reported for 

Arnoux’s beaked whale (Hobson and Martin, 1996). Tagging results with Cuvier’s beaked whale showed 

one animal diving for 50 min (Johnson et al., 2004). Mesoplodon stejnegeri were observed to dive for 

“10-15 min” in Alaska (Loughlin, 1982). 

Blainsville’s beaked whales and Cuvier’s beaked whales both regularly dove for 48-68 min on deep 

dives (>800 m [>2,625 ft]) (Tyack et al., 2006). 

Heading Variance 

Sowerby’s beaked whales surfacing in the Gully were reported to have no apparent orientation, and 

would change orientation up to 180° between surfacing (Hooker and Baird, 1999a). 

Speed

Dive rates averaged 1 m/s (3.3 ft/s) or 3.6 km/hr (2.2 mi/hr) (Hooker and Baird, 1999b). A mean 

surface speed of 5 km/hr (3 mi/hr) was reported by (Kastelein and Gerrits, 1991). 

Habitat

The minimum sea depth in which beaked whales were found in the Gulf of Mexico was 253 m 

(830 ft) (Davis et al., 1998). In the Gully in Canada, Sowerby’s beaked whales were found in water 

ranging from 550-1,500 m (1,804-4,921 ft) in depth (Hooker and Baird, 1999a). Blainsville’s beaked 

whales (M. densirostris) were found in water depths of 136-1,319 m (446-4,327 ft) in the Bahamas, and 

were found most often in areas with a high bathymetric slope (MacLeod and Zuur, 2005). Mesoplodon

was found in waters from 700 to >1,800 m (2,297 to >5,906 ft) off Scotland and the Faroe Islands (Weir, 

2000) and between 680 and 1,933 m (2,231 and 6,342 ft) in the Gulf of Mexico (Davis et al., 1998). 

Baird et al. (2006) reported that Blainsville’s beaked whales off Hawaii were found in waters from 

633-2,050 m (2,077-9,726 ft) deep (mean=1,119), while Cuvier’s beaked whales were found in waters 

from 1,381 to 3,655 m (4,531 to 11,992 ft) deep (mean=2,131). 

Group Size

Pod sizes reported for Mesoplodon stejnegeri in Alaska ranged between 5 and 15 animals (Loughlin, 

1982). Group sizes for Sowerby’s beaked whale in the Gully in Canada ranged between 3 and 

10 individuals (Hooker and Baird, 1999a). Group sizes for dense-beaked whales off the Canary Islands 

ranged between 2 and 9 whales, with a mean size of 3.44 whales (Ritter and Brederlau, 1999). Groups 

sizes for Longman’s beaked whale in the western Indian Ocean ranged between 1 and 40 individuals, 

with a mean size of 7.2 whales (Anderson et al., 2006). 

7.3.4.14.Dwarf and Pygmy Sperm Whales (Kogia spp.)

Data on dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are rare and have been combined for these two similar 

species.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-47

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Kogia spp. 1/2 75o 200/1,000 5/12 30 1/11 Norm. 117/reflect

Surface Time

Observations of Kogia off Hawaii indicated the animals remained at the surface for up to a “few” 

minutes and then dove (Baird, 2005). 

Dive Depth

Kogia were found in Gulf of Mexico waters of less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft) along the upper 

continental slope (Baumgartner et al., 2001). The dive limits of 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft) were chosen 

based on similar species diving deeply to feed and within the physical constraints of the environment. It 

should be noted that Kogia have been seen in waters almost 2,000 m (6,562 ft) deep (Davis et al., 1998), 

but they may not be diving to the bottom.

Dive Time

Maximum dive time reported for Kogia is 12 min (Hohn et al., 1995). A rehabilitated pygmy sperm 

whale made long dives from 2-11 min in length at night and shorter dives during the day (Scott et al., 

2001). 

Speed

Tracking of a rehabilitated pygmy sperm whale found that speeds range from 0-6 kn (0-11 km/hr [0-

7 mi/hr]), with a mean speed of 3 kn (Scott et al., 2001). 

Habitat

Kogia were found in the Gulf of Mexico at a minimum depth of 176 m (577 ft) (Davis et al., 1998). 

They were found off Hawaii in waters between 450 and 3,200 m (1,476 and 10,499 ft) deep, with a mean 

of 1,425 m (4,675 ft) (Baird, 2005). Kogia in the Philippines were found in waters from 117 to 3,744 m 

(384 to 12,284 ft) in depth (Dolar and Perrin, 2003). 

Group Size

Group sizes off Hawaii ranged between 1 and 6 animals (Baird, 2005). group sizes in the Gulf of 

Mexico range between 1 and 3 (Mullin et al., 2004). 

7.3.4.15.Lagenorhynchus Species

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr)

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Lags 1/1 75o 25/125 1/3 30 2/9 Norm.

Surface Time

Surface times for tagged white-sided dolphins were less than 1 min (Mate et al., 1994).
E-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Dive Depth

No direct data on dive depth are available for any of the Lagenorhynchus. However, in the Atlantic 

they feed on herring and in the Pacific they feed on squid and mesopelagic fishes. For Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin a maximum dive depth of 125 m (410 ft) is used since this covers the depth range of 

herring; it is slightly shallower than the other dolphin species due to the Lagenorhynchus’ short dive time.

Dive Time

Maximum dive time for a tagged white-sided dolphin was 4 min, although the mean time was <1 min

(Mate et al., 1994). Peale’s dolphin (L. australis) dove from 1-130 s (de Haro and Iniguez, 1997). 

Speed

The mean minimum speed of 5.7 km/hr (3.5 mi/hr) was estimated by the straight line distance 

between satellite tag locations, which is almost certainly an underestimate of real-world swimming speeds

(Mate et al., 1994). The maximum “minimum speed” was 14.22 km/hr (8.83 mi/hr). A white-sided 

dolphin in captivity swam between 1.5 and 3.5 m/s (5 and 11.5 ft/s) (5.4 and 12.6 km/hr [3.4 and 

7.8 mi/hr) (Curren et al., 1994). Theodolite tracking of dusky dolphins (L. obscurus) produced mean 

speeds between 3.68 and 6.08 km/hr (2.4 and 3.8 mi/hr) with 10th and 90th percentiles of ~2 and ~9 km/hr 

(~ 1 and ~ 6 mi/hr) (Yin, 1999). 

Group Size

The mean size of Atlantic white-sided dolphin groups was 52 (Weinrich et al., 2001). The mean 

group size of Pacific white-sided dolphins was 30.8 (Barlow, 1995). In Southeast Alaska, the group size 

was extremely variable, ranging from 1 to 500 animals, with an overall mean of 35.6 animals (Dahlheim 

and Towell, 1994). 

7.3.4.16.Fraser’s Dolphin

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Fraser’s 

Dolphin 1/1 75o 10/700 1/6 30 2/9 Norm. 100/reflect 

Dive Depth

Fraser’s dolphins dive to about 600-700 m (1,969-2,297 ft) to feed, much deeper than spinner 

dolphins (Dolar et al., 2003). Numerous records indicated that the primary prey of Fraser’s dolphins is 

found at great depth (Caldwell et al., 1976; Miyazaki and Wada, 1978; Robison and Craddock, 1983), 

although there has been at least one report of near-surface feeding (Watkins et al., 1994). All other 

behavioral parameters are taken from Stenella species since there are no direct data for Fraser’s dolphin. 

The dive time has been increased to 6 min to account for the deeper dives. 

Group Size

A single group of Fraser’s dolphins comprising of 158 individuals was seen off the Pacific Coast of 

Costa Rica (May-Collado et al., 2005). 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-49

7.3.4.17.Small Beaked Whales (Mesoplodon, Ziphius, Tasmacetus) 

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Beaked 

Whales 1/7 75o 1,000/1,453 (60)100/800 (40)

48/68

12/30

30/300 (50)

90/300 (50) 3/6 Norm. 253/reflect 

Surface Time

Surface times in Arnoux’s beaked whales ranged from 1.2-6.8 min (Hobson and Martin, 1996). 

Sowerby’s beaked whales had surface times of 1-2 min, during which they would blow 6-8 times (Hooker 

and Baird, 1999a). 

Dive Depth

The minimum and maximum dive depth measured for a beaked whale was 120 and 1,453 m (394 and 

4,767 ft) respectively (Hooker and Baird, 1999b). Cuvier’s beaked whales tagged off the Canary Islands 

had foraging dives between 824 and 1,267 m (2,703 and 4,157 ft) while Blainsville’s beaked whales dove 

to depths between 655 and 975 m (2,149 and 3,199 ft) (Johnson et al., 2004). 

Northern bottlenose whales performed shallow dives with a range of 41-332 m (135-1,089 ft) (n=33), 

while deep dives ranged from 493-1,453 m (1,617-4,767 ft) (n=23). Dive depth and dive duration were 

strongly correlated (Hooker and Baird, 1999b). 

Blainsville’s beaked whales in Hawaii performed dives to mid-water depth (100-600 m 

[328-1,969 ft]) approximately six times more frequently than at night. Dives deeper than 800 m (2,625 ft) 

had no diurnal difference (Baird et al., 2008). 

Dive Time

The minimum and maximum dive time measured was 16 and 70.5 min respectively (Hooker and 

Baird, 1999b). Sowerby’s beaked whales had dives between 12 and (at least) 28 min in the Gully in 

Canada (Hooker and Baird, 1999a). Arnoux’s beaked whale had modal dive times between 35 and 

65 min (mean=46.4 min, SD=13.1) with a maximum dive time of at least 70 min (Hobson and Martin, 

1996). Tagging results with Ziphius had one animal diving for 50 min (Johnson et al., 2004). 

Mesoplodon stejnegeri were observed to dive for 10-15 min in Alaska (Loughlin, 1982). 

Blainsville’s beaked whales and Cuvier’s beaked whales both regularly dove for 48-68 min on deep 

dives (>800 m [>2,625 ft]). 

Heading Variance 

Sowerby’s beaked whales surfacing in the Gully were reported to have no apparent orientation, and 

would change orientation up to 180° between surfacing (Hooker and Baird, 1999a). 

Speed

Dive rates averaged 1 m/s (3.3 ft) or 3.6 km/hr (2.2 mi/hr) (Hooker and Baird, 1999b). A mean 

surface speed of 5 km/hr (3.1 mi/hr) was reported by Kastelein and Gerrits (1991). 

Habitat

The minimum sea depth in which beaked whales were found in the Gulf of Mexico was 253 m 

(830 ft) (Davis et al., 1998). Sowerby’s beaked whales in the Gully in Canada were found in water 

ranging from 550-1,500 m (1,804-4,921 ft) in depth (Hooker and Baird, 1999a). Blainsville’s beaked 

whales (M. densirostris) were found in water depths of 136-1,319 m (446-4,327 ft) in the Bahamas, and 

were found most often in areas with a high bathymetric slope (MacLeod and Zuur, 2005). Mesoplodons
E-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

were found in waters from 700 to >1,800 m (2,297 to >5,906 ft) off Scotland and the Faroe Islands (Weir, 

2000) and between 680 and 1,933 m (2,231 and 6,342 ft) in the Gulf of Mexico (Davis et al., 1998). 

Baird et al. (2006) reported that Blainsville’s beaked whales off Hawaii were found in waters from 

633-2,050 m (2,077-6,726 ft) deep (mean=1,119 m [3,671 ft]) while Cuvier’s beaked whales were found 

in waters from 1,381-3,655 m (4,531-11,992 ft) deep (mean=2,131 m [6,991 ft]). 

Group Size

Pod sizes of Mesoplodon stejnegeri in Alaska ranged between 5 and 15 animals (Loughlin, 1982). 

Sowerby’s beaked whale in the Gully in Canada had group sizes ranging between 3 and 10 (Hooker and 

Baird, 1999a). Group sizes for dense-beaked whale off the Canary Islands ranged between 2 and 9, with 

a mean size of 3.44 whales (Ritter and Brederlau, 1999). Group size for Longman’s beaked whale in the 

western Indian Ocean group ranged between 1 and 40, with a mean size of 7.2 whales (Anderson et al., 

2006). 

7.3.4.18.Killer Whale

There is a remarkable paucity of quantitative data available for killer whales considering their coastal 

habitat and popular appeal. Nevertheless, most data from “blackfish,” with the exception of dive depth, 

were used to model killer whales. The different feeding ecology of these species makes very deep dives 

apparently unnecessary. When additional data allow, separate animats need to be developed for 

“resident” and “transient” killer whales.

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Killer Whale 1/1 75o 10/180 1/10 30 3/12 Norm. 25/reflect 

Dive Depth

Killer whales feeding on herring were observed to dive to 180 m (591 ft) (Nøttestad et al., 2002). 

Killer whales are found in at least two “races,” transients and residents. Transients feed primarily on 

marine mammals, whereas residents feed primarily on fish. Residents were reported to dive to the bottom 

(173 m [568 ft]) (Baird, 1994). Baird (1994) also reported that while residents dive deeper than 

transients, the transients spent a far greater amount of time in deeper water. Individual resident killer 

whales in the Pacific northwest had maximum dive depths ranging between 24 and 264 m (79 and 866 ft,) 

with a group mean maximum depth of 140.8 m (462 ft) (SD=61.8, n=34) (Baird et al., 1995). The 

distribution of dive depths reported by Baird et al. (2005) was strongly skewed toward shallow values.

Dive Time

Daytime dive times for males were 2.79 min, significantly longer than the 2.09 min dive times for 

females (Baird et al., 2005). 

Speed

Uncalibrated swim speed data were presented by Baird et al. (2005). Killer whales chasing minke 

whales had prolonged speeds of 15-30 km/hr (9-19 mi/hr) (Ford et al., 2005) although these speeds are 

probably obtained only during predation. A shore-based study of southern resident killer whales in 

Washington State had a mean speed of 9.5 km/hr (5.9 mi/hr) with a mean range of 4.7-16.1 km/hr 

(2.9-10 mi/hr) (Kriete, 2002). The mean speed of control animals was approximately 5.3 km/hr 

(3.3 mi/hr), measured during a study of the response of killer whales to vessels (Williams et al., 2002). A 

similar study reported a mean speed of 6.64 km/hr (4.13 mi/hr) without vessels and 6.478 km/hr 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-51

(4.03 mi/hr) in the presence of vessels (Bain et al., 2006). Taken together, these three studies produced a 

speed range of 3-12 km/hr (1.9-7.5 mi/hr) for use in AIM.

Habitat

Killer whales are known to occur in very shallow water (e.g., rubbing beaches) as well as cross open 

ocean basins. However, they are usually coastal and most often found in temperate waters.

Killer whales in the Gulf of California were seen in groups of 2-15 whales with a mean of 8.5 and a 

SD of 9.19 (n=2) (Silber et al., 1994). Off the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica, the mean group size was 

3.51 (SD=2.99, n=7) (May-Collado et al., 2005). 

7.3.4.19.Harbor Porpoise

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Harbor 

Porpoise 1/1 17/31 

1/10 (35)

10/40 (45)

40/100 (15)

100/230 (5)

1/4 30 2/7 Norm. 100-1,000/ 

reflect 

Surface Time

Mean surface time was reported as 3.9 s (Otani, 2000). 

Dive Depth

Maximum observed dive depth for a free-ranging harbor porpoise was 64.7 m (212 ft) (Otani, 2000). 

However, the same study reported that >90 percent of dives were less than 10 m (33 ft). Another TDR 

study with seven animals tagged had dive depths that ranged from a mean of 14 ±16 m (46 ±52 ft) to 41 

±32 m (135 ±105 ft) while the mean for all animals tagged was 25 ± 30 m (82 ±98 ft) (Westgate et al., 

1995). One large female made a very deep dive to 226 m (741 ft) although dives this deep were 

infrequent.

Dive Time

Maximum observed dive time for a free-ranging harbor porpoise was 193 s (Otani, 2000) although 

most dives were less than one min in length. The mean dive duration of seven animals in the Bay of 

Fundy was 65 ±33 s (Westgate et al., 1995). 

Speed

Mean descent speed was 2.9 km/hr (1.8 mi/hr) with a maximum descent speed of 15.5 km/hr 

(9.6 mi/hr). Ascent speeds were similar, with a mean of 3.24 km/hr (2 mi/hr) and a maximum of 

14.5 km/hr (9 mi/hr) (Otani, 2000). TDR tagged animals moved at least 51 km (32 mi) in a 24 hr period 

(2.125 km/hr [1.3 mi/hr]) (Westgate et al., 1995). A captive harbor porpoise swam between 3.6-7.2 km/hr 

(2.2-4.5 mi/hr) (Curren et al., 1994). A speed range of 2-7 km/hr (1.2-4.3 mi/hr) was used in AIM to 

represent the harbor porpoise speed.

Group Size

The mean group size of harbor porpoise off California was 5.0 individuals (n=31) (Barlow, 1995). 
E-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

7.3.4.20.Sperm Whale

There are indications of diurnal differences in diving behavior (Aoki et al., 2007). There is also 

evidence of large-scale variability between environments. Therefore, these parameters should be 

considered generalized and warrant location specific refinement.

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Sperm Whale 8/11 90/75o 600/1,400 (90)

200/600 (10) 18/65 20 1/10 Norm. 200/reflect 

Atlantic Ocean Model Parameters

Atlantic 

Sperm Whale 5/9 90/75o 600/1,000 35/65 30/300 (50)90/300 (50) 1/8 Norm. 200/reflect 

Surface Time

Male sperm whales in New Zealand had a mean duration on the surface of 9.1 min, with a range of 

2-19 min (Jaquet et al., 2000). The distribution of surface times was non-normal, with 68 percent of the 

surface times falling in between 8 and 11 min. These values were used for AIM modeling.

Surfacing and Dive Angles

Surfacing angles of 90° and diving angles between 60° and 90° have been reported (Miller et al., 

2004). 

Dive Depth

The maximum accurately measured sperm whale dive depth was 1,330 m (4,364 ft) (Watkins et al., 

2002). Foraging dives typically begin at depths of 300 m (984 ft) (Papastavrou et al., 1989). Digital 

acoustic recording tag (DTAG) data from the Gulf of Mexico show that most foraging dives were 

between the depths of 400-800 m (1,312-2,625 ft), with occasional dives between 900 and 1,000 m 

(2,953 and 3,281 ft) (Jochens et al., 2008, Figure 5.2.2). 

Sperm whale diving is not uniform. As an example, data from a paper on sperm whale diving 

reported different dive types (Amano and Yoshioka, 2003). The AIM can now accommodate these 

different dive types at different frequencies of use.

Depth Time

Type of Dive N AIM min AIM max AIM min AIM max

Dives w/ active bottom period 65 606 1082 33.17 41.63

Dives w/o active bottom period 4 417 567 31.29 33.71

V shaped dives 3 213 353 12.77 20.83

Total 72

Dive depths have also been shown to have diel variation in some areas while others do not show this 

variation (Aoki et al., 2007). These differences have been attributed to the behavior of the prey species. 

Tagged whales off California changed their dive patterns in response to changes in the depth of tagged 

squid (Davis et al., 2007). 

Male sperm whales foraging in high latitude waters dove to a maximum depth of 1,860 m (6,102 ft), 

but the median dive depth was only 175 m (574 ft) (Teloni et al., 2008). 

In the Atlantic, maximum dive depths ranged from 639-934 m (2,096-3,064 ft) (Palka and Johnson, 

2007). 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-53

Area

Average Duration (min)

Foraging Dive Inter-Dive 

Interval Surface Interval

Total Descent Ascent

North Atlantic 44.6 24.4 20.2 7.1 70.0

Gulf of Mexico 44.7 22.2 22.4 8.2 63.7

Mediterranean 40.3 24.4 19.3 9.7 57.5

Area

Average Depth (m)

Maximum Depth of Foraging Dives Inter-Dive 

Interval Surface Interval

North Atlantic 933.9 1.15 5.6

Gulf of Mexico 638.7 0.45 4.6

Mediterranean 797.3 0.34 4.9

Sperm whales showed diel variability off Ogasawara, Japan, where the whales dove deeper during the 

day (mean=853 ±130 m [2,799 ±427 ft]) than at night (mean=469 ±122 m [1,539 ±400 ft]) (Aoki et al., 

2007). However, off the Kumano Coast, there was not a large difference in depths (561 versus 646 m 

[1,841 versus 2,119 ft]). 

Dive Time

Sperm whale dive times average 44.4 min in duration and range from 18.2-65.3 min (Watkins et al., 

2002). In the Gulf of Mexico, the modal dive time is about 55 min (Jochens et al., 2008, Figure 4.4.3). 

Dive times in the Atlantic averaged 40-45 min (Palka and Johnson, 2007). 

Dive times off Ogasawara, Japan had an average of 40.1 min (SD=4.5) during the day and a mean of 

32.3 min (SD=5.3) at night (Aoki et al., 2007). Off the Kumano Coast of Japan, they had intermediate 

values of 36.1 min (SD=3.7) during the day and 34.1 (SD=7) min at night.

Heading Variance 

Whales in the Gulf of Mexico tend to follow bathymetric contours (Jochens et al., 2008). Relative 

angles between direction of movements and direction of contours have been calculated and transformed 

so that 0 shows alignment with the orientation of the contour, -90 would be moving directly offshore, and 

+90 would indicate a movement directly inshore (Jochens et al., 2008, Figure 4.4.5). 

Speed

Sperm whales are typically slow or motionless on the surface. Mean surface speeds of 1.25 km/hr 

(0.78 mi/hr) were reported by Jaquet et al. (2000) and 3.42 km/hr (2.13 mi/hr) (Whitehead et al., 1989). 

Their mean dive rate ranges from 5.22 to 10.08 km/hr (3.24 to 6.26 mi/hr) with a mean of 7.32 km/hr 

(4.55 mi/hr) (Lockyer, 1997). In Norway, horizontal swimming speeds varied between 0.72 and 

9.36 km/hr (0.45 and 5.8 mi/hr) (Wahlberg, 2002). Sperm whales in the Atlantic Ocean swam at speeds 

between 2.6 and 3.5 km/hr (1.6 and 2.2 mi/hr) (Jaquet and Whitehead, 1999; Watkins et al., 1999). Mean 

speeds in the Gulf of Mexico were 3.3 km/hr (2.1 mi/hr) (Jochens et al., 2008). Based on these data, a 

minimum speed of 1 km/hr (0.6 mi/hr) and a maximum speed of 8 km/hr (5 mi/hr) was set for sperm 

whales specified with a normal distribution so that mean speeds would be about 4 km/hr (2.5 mi/hr). 

Off Ogasawara Japan, sperm whales swam faster during the day (mean=2.0 m/s [6.6 ft/s], SD=0.3) 

than during the night (mean=1.5 m/s [5 ft/s], SD=0.3). 

Habitat

Sperm whales are found almost everywhere, but they are usually in water deeper than 480 m 

(1,575 ft) (Davis et al., 1998). However, there have been sightings of animals in shallow water (40-100 m

[131-328 ft]) (Whitehead et al., 1992; Scott and Sadove, 1997). In the Gulf of California there was no 
E-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

relationship between depth or bathymetric slope and abundance and animals were seen in water as 

shallow as 100 m (328 ft) (Jaquet and Gendron, 2002). Based on these reports, a compromise value of 

200 m (656 ft) was used as the shallow water limit for sperm whales.

Group Size

Social, female-centered groups of sperm whales in the Pacific have “typical” group sizes of 

25-30 animals, based on the more precise measurements in (Coakes and Whitehead, 2004), although less 

precise estimates are as high as 53 whales in a group.

7.3.4.21.Stenella: Spinner, Spotted, and Striped Dolphins

Most Stenella species have strong diurnal variation in their behavior. Separate daytime and nighttime 

animats was built for this species by programming two dive behaviors. The relative proportion of these 

dive types can be scaled by the local photoperiod with the AIM weighting parameter.

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Stenella 1/1 75o Day: 5/25 (50)Night: 10/400 (10)

Night: 10/100 (40)

1/4 30 2/9 Norm. 10/reflect 

Dive Depth

Spinner dolphins feed during the night and rest inshore during the daytime. At night they dive to 

about 400 m (1,312 ft) to feed (Dolar et al., 2003). 

Pantropical spotted dolphins off Hawaii also dive deeper at night than during the day. The daytime 

depth had a mean of 12.8 m (42 ft), with a maximum of 122 m (400 ft), whereas the night-time mean was 

57 m (187 ft), with a maximum of 213 m (699 ft) (Baird et al., 2001). 

Spinner dolphins off Hawaii typically track and forage upon the mesopelagic boundary layer as it 

migrates both vertically and horizontally at night. It appears that dolphins have to dive deeply only at the 

very beginning and end of the migration (Benoit-Bird and Au, 2003) foraging mostly at moderate depths. 

Therefore, 10 percent of the dives were set to be deep, 40 percent of the dives were “typical” foraging 

depths, with a maximum of 150 m (492 ft), and 50 percent of the dives were set to represent the daytime 

resting behavior ranging between 5 and 25 m (16 and 82 ft). 

Dive Time

A single spotted dolphin has dive times ranging between 1 and 204 s (Leatherwood and Ljungblad, 

1979). Pantropical spotted dolphins off Hawaii had a mean dive duration of 1.95 min (SD=0.92) (Baird 

et al., 2001). An Atlantic spotted dolphin tagged with a satellite linked TDR had a maximum dive time of 

3.5 min (Davis et al., 1996). A four min dive time maximum was used for modeling purposes in AIM.

Speed

The mean speed of striped dolphins in the Mediterranean was estimated at 6.1 kn (11 km/hr 

[6.8 mi/hr]) and burst to 32 kn were observed (Archer and Perrin, 1999). A maximum speed of 20 km/hr 

(12 mi/hr) was chosen as a typical (non-burst) maximum speed. A tagged spotted dolphin was tracked at 

estimated average speeds of 2.3-10.7 kn with bursts exceeding 12 kn (Leatherwood and Ljungblad, 1979). 

The estimated burst speed of spotted dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific was 21.6 km/hr (13.4 mi/hr) 

for adults and 10.8 km/hr (6.7 mi/hr) for neonates. The estimated long-term top speed is 9 km/hr (5.6 

mi/hr) for adults and 3.6 km/hr (2.2 mi/hr) for neonates (Edwards, 2006). The Edwards (2006) paper also 

summarized speed estimates and duration for a number of species. Therefore their estimate of 9 km/hr 

(5.6 mi/h) was used for long-term movements, as modeled in AIM.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-55

Habitat

In the Gulf of Mexico, spinner dolphins were seen in water deeper than 526 m (1,726 ft), striped 

dolphins were seen in water deeper than 570 m (1,870 ft), and spotted dolphins were seen in water deeper 

than 102 m (335 ft) (Davis et al., 1998). Spinner dolphins in Hawaii are known to move into shallow 

bays during the day (Norris and Dohl, 1980). 

Group Size

Group size estimates were summarized, and the majority of striped dolphin groups were less than 

500 animals. The mean of the smaller groups was 101 animals (Archer and Perrin, 1999). Spotted 

dolphins off Costa Rica had group sizes between 1 and 50 (mean=10.16, SD=9.61) (May-Collado and 

Ramirez, 2005). 

Summary of Gulf of Mexico Data (Source: Mullin et al., 2004) 

Species Min Group Size Max Group Size Mean SE N 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 5 210 49.0 4.5 47 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 5 48 22.4 3.9 12 

Striped dolphin 7 150 46.3 16.0 8 

Spinner dolphin 48 200 91.3 36.4 4 

Clymene dolphin 9 168 59 19.5 7 

Clymene dolphins off Costa Rica had a mean group size of 76.1 (SE=11, n=109) (Fertl et al., 2003). 

Summary of Pacific Costa Rica Data (May-Collado et al., 2005)

Species Mean SD

Pantropical spotted dolphin 29.38 58.28 

Striped dolphin 48.9 43.05

Spinner dolphin 100.59 107.7 

7.3.4.22.Bottlenose Dolphin

In many environments, there can be coastal and pelagic stocks of bottlenose dolphins. This is 

certainly the case off the east coast of the U.S., however defining the range of offshore form is difficult

(Wells et al., 1999). Regardless of the genetic differences that may exist between these two forms, they 

frequently occur at different densities and are split into two animat categories.

Model Parameters

Min/Max 

Surface Time 

(min)

Surface/Dive 

Angle 

Dive Depth (m) 

Min/Max

(Percentage) 

Min/Max 

Dive Time

(min)

Heading Variance 

(angle/time)

Min/Max 

Speed 

(km/hr) 

Speed 

Distribution

(α,β)

Depth 

Limit/Reaction 

Angle 

Bottlenose 

(Coastal) 1/1 75o 15/98 1/3 30 2/16 Norm. 10/reflect 

Bottlenose 

(Pelagic) 1/1 75o

6/50 (80)

50/100 (5)

100/250 (5)

250/450 (10)

1/2

2/3

3/4

5/6

30/300 (45) 

90/90 (45)

90/90 (10)

2/16 Norm. 101/1,226 

reflect 
E-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Dive Depth

An early maximum recorded dive depth for wild bottlenose dolphins is 200 m (656 ft) (Kooyman and 

Andersen, 1969). More recently, offshore bottlenose dolphins were reported to dive to depths greater 

than 450 m (1,476 ft) (Klatsky et al., 2007). 

A satellite tagged dolphin in Tampa Bay, Florida had a maximum dive depth of 98 m (322 ft)

(Mate et al., 1995). This value was used as the maximum dive depth for the coastal form of bottlenose.

Dive Time

Measured surface times for bottlenose dolphins ranged from 38 s to 1.2 min (Lockyer and Morris, 

1986, 1987; Mate et al., 1995). Dive depths for a juvenile bottlenose had a mean value of 55.3 s although 

the distribution was skewed toward shorter dives (Lockyer and Morris, 1987). However, pelagic 

bottlenose dolphins were observed to dive for periods longer than five min (Klatsky et al., 2007). 

Speed

Bottlenose dolphins were observed to swim for extended periods at speeds of 4-20 km/hr 

(2.5-12.4 mi/hr), although they could burst (for about 20 s) at up to 54 km/hr (34 mi/hr) (Lockyer and 

Morris, 1987). Dolphins in the Sado Estuary, Portugal had a mean speed of 4.3 km/hr (2.7 mi/hr) and

maximum speed of 11.2 km/hr (7 mi/hr) (Harzen, 2002). A more recent analysis found that maximum

speed of wild dolphins was 20.5 km/hr (12.7 mi/hr), although trained animals could double this speed 

when preparing to leap (Rohr et al., 2002). Maximum speeds of wild dolphins in France was 4.8 m/s

(15.7 ft/s), with an average speed (relative to water) of 7.9 km/hr (4.9 mi/hr) (Ridoux et al., 1997). 

Bottlenose dolphins off Argentina swam much faster (14 km/hr [9.7 mi/hr]) when in water >10 m (>33 ft) 

than while in shallow water (5.8 km/hr [3.6 mi/hr]) (Würsig and Würsig, 1979). 

Habitat

In the Gulf of Mexico, bottlenose dolphins where observed in water depths between 101 and 1,226 m 

(331 and 4,022 ft) (Davis et al., 1998). However tagged animals have been observed to swim into water 

5,000 m (16,404 ft) deep (Wells et al., 1999). 

Group Size

Bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of California were seen in groups of 1-60 dolphins, with a mean 

group size of 10.1 (Silber et al., 1994). In the Gulf of Mexico they were seen in groups of 

1-68 individuals (mean=14.5, SE=1.5, n=83) (Mullin et al., 2004). Off the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica, 

mean group size was 21.5 (SD=33.73, n=176) (May-Collado et al., 2005). 

7.4. ESTIMATIONS OF SOURCE LEVEL OF EFFORT

The final information needed to calculate the overall impact from the proposed action and the 

alternatives is the number and timing of the various surveys to be performed. The two major components 

of the estimates of the survey Level of Effort (LOE) are (1) the annual estimations of the total number of 

each survey type to be conducted; and (2) the spatial distribution of these surveys in the 35 modeling

regions (regions 1-21 for seismic airgun surveys for oil and gas exploration, plus regions 22-35 for 

renewable energy and marine minerals HRG surveys). A brief discussion of these components follows.

There are several assumptions embedded in the modeling which are necessary because this analysis is 

being performed far in advance of the actual surveys efforts. These embedded assumptions include

• the estimation that surveys would have an even temporal distribution throughout the 

year. This allows all seasons to be examined in the analysis and enables to analysts

to observe particularly time periods which could cause higher impacts than others. 

The reality of Western Atlantic Ocean operations is that winter operations could 

possibly encounter the worst conditions in general, aside from operations during a 

hurricane; 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-57

• the marine mammal densities are averaged for each area and this value is used in the 

analysis. This is reasonable because the exact location of each survey is unknown 

and on average, much or most of these regions would eventually be surveyed; 

• nominal values used to describe the survey geometries are subject to change and most 

likely would be based on previous surveys conducted and their results; and

• nominal source levels and configurations were modeled.

7.4.1. Annual Survey Levels of Effort (LOE)

The BOEM has provided the annual LOE for each of the survey types out to the year 2020. The 

tables showing these LOE are included in the Programmatic EIS (Chapter 3), and a condensed version is 

presented in Table E-11. 

Table E-11

 

Projected Levels of Seismic Airgun Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration

in the Mid- 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)

2D 

(km)

3D 

(blocks)a

WAZ 

(blocks)b

HRG 

(line km)

VSP 

(line km)

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2014 83,400 0 0 0 0 28,450 0 0 0 0

2015 160,950 0 0 0 0 56,900 0 0 0 0

2016 12,875 400 0 0 0 8,050 300 0 0 0

2017 64,375 200 0 0 0 48,300 200 0 3,220 0

2018 41,800 200 100 3,220 0 38,624 200 100 32,200 0

2019 16,100 200 100 16,100 160 32,200 200 200 16,100 320

2020 16,100 300 200 64,375 320 8,050 300 200 40,250 480

TOTAL 395,600 1,300 400 83,695 480 220,574 1,200 500 91,770 800

Abbreviations: 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional; 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).

7.4.2. Spatial Distribution of the 2D Survey Effort

BOEM provided the 13 seismic, 5 additional gravity, and 5 additional magnetic G&G survey 

applications from nine geophysical companies wishing to conduct seismic 2D surveys for oil and gas 

exploration in the AOI. Included in these applications were the descriptions of the areas to be surveyed 

and the planned survey geometries.

An analysis using geographic information system (GIS) programming was conducted on these 

applications and the resulting graphic was a density plot of the entire survey effort for the Mid- and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas (Figure E-19). In the analysis, this plot was handled in a manner similar to that 

used to determine the average marine mammal densities in each modeled region. Essentially, the number 

of survey miles for each modeled region was summed and then converted into the number of standard 

blocks in each region that would be surveyed. The description included in each of the nine applications 

changed the overall geometry employed to conduct the 2D survey. This necessitated an analysis of the 

variation in these surveys, and a nominal or average 2D survey for these applications had a linear miles 

per standard block surveyed conversion of 1.54 nmi per block (2.85 km/block). This average value is less 

than that typically used in the Gulf of Mexico for 2D surveys (e.g., approximately 6.24 nmi/block), but it 

conforms to the applications and it was used in all subsequent 2D survey calculations. Similarly, an 

average 2D HRG survey conversion of 200 nmi/block (370.40 km/block) is used for this analysis. This 

value is a compromise between the 70 nmi/block value typically used in the Gulf of Mexico and the 

360 nmi/block calculated by BOEM from the applications. By using these conversion factors and the 

applications, the spatial distribution of the various seismic airgun surveys throughout the 21 modeling 

regions was estimated. For the non-airgun HRG surveys the conversion factor used was 666.3 nmi per 

block (1,234.0 km/block).
E-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure E-19. Level of Effort Density Plot for Future 2D Seismic Airgun Surveys Based on Overlay of 

Seismic Survey Applications Submitted to BOEM. Areas with darker shading would be 

expected to have higher levels of survey effort due to overlapping survey areas.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-59

The final adjustment to each regions 2D survey effort was to distribute temporally as per the 

distribution discussed in Section 7.4.1. The result is a distribution of the entire 2D survey effort over the 

years and modeling regions addressed in this Programmatic EIS. 

Finally, the same spatial distribution of the 2D surveys over the 21 modeling regions was also used to 

distribute the 3D, WAZ, HRG, and VSP surveys, since it follows that the 2D surveys would essentially 

act as the gateway to the follow-up surveys by showing where they would be most productive.

7.4.3. Correction to Level of Effort (LOE) Tables to Account for Time-Area 

Closures

The proposed action includes a suite of existing regulations as well as mitigation measures that were 

developed specifically for this Programmatic EIS (Chapter 2.1.2). Specifically, all survey activity which 

was planned to occur in North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, the Southeast U.S. Seasonal 

Management Area (SMA), or the Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMA was assumed to be rescheduled for a period 

other than the time periods when those areas are established (November 15 through April 15 for the 

critical habitat and Southeast SMA; November 1 to April 30 for the Mid-Atlantic SMA). In order to 

incorporate this prohibition into the modeling the following steps were followed:

• all surveys which would have occurred in these closure areas and occur in modeled 

areas 4 and 5 (winter), 9 and 10 (2 months of spring) or 20 and 21 (the last month of 

fall) where rescheduled to the open and available time periods at the same sites for 

periods when the North Atlantic right whales are absent;

• since these closure areas constitute a large portion of some modeling regions 

(in some cases up to roughly 50 percent), each of the species densities were examined 

to ensure that the density being used was correct or at least conservative; and

• the LOE for these cancelled surveys was then evenly distributed over the remaining 

months when these surveys could be performed. This was reflected in the final LOE 

tables, Tables E-12 through E-15 for 2D, 3D, WAZ, and VSP surveys respectively. 

The LOE tables for HRG surveys of oil and gas sites using the 90 cubic airgun are 

shown in Table E-16. The LOE estimates for non-airgun HRG surveys for marine 

minerals and renewable energy sites are shown in Tables E-17 and E-18, 

respectively.

Similarly, the number of potential impacts also is scaled to derive a “per block survey” level of 

potential impacts. The predicted potential impacts can then be calculated by multiplying this value by the 

number of surveys of that type to be performed in that year, and summing the potential impacts to that 

species from all survey types combined.

Although the effect of time-area closures on incidental take was not specifically studied, it is 

estimated that about two-thirds (67 percent) of the incidental takes of North Atlantic right whales would 

be avoided under Alternative A (the proposed action), based on comparison of the initial model runs 

(without closures) with the final model runs (with closures). Incidental take was not modeled for 

Alternative B. However, sightings data reviewed by NMFS in developing the ship strike rule indicate 

that approximately 83 percent of right whale sightings occur within 37 km (20 nmi) of the coast. Since 

Alternative B includes a time-area closure extending 37 km (20 nmi) from shore along the entire AOI, it 

is estimated that approximately 80 percent of the incidental takes of North Atlantic right whales would be 

avoided (as compared with no closures). These percentages are based solely on seismic airgun surveys, 

which account for nearly all of the incidental takes.
E-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table E-12

 

Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for 2D Seismic Airgun Surveys

Year

Modeled 

Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

1 0.0 0.0 1795.4 3465.8 278.9 1398.2 911.3 539.1 347.8

2 0.0 0.0 4461.0 8626.8 721.2 3677.6 2452.6 1098.7 883.9

3 0.0 0.0 2398.8 4738.9 571.1 3297.3 2539.6 1929.0 603.5

4 0.0 0.0 166.5 333.0 47.1 282.6 226.0 188.4 47.1

5 0.0 0.0 571.2 1118.8 118.2 656.7 285.9 329.1 131.2

6 0.0 0.0 2233.8 4310.9 344.8 1724.2 1119.6 431.2 431.2

7 0.0 0.0 4110.7 7949.8 665.4 3394.9 2256.6 1018.6 815.1

8 0.0 0.0 1802.5 3569.4 444.7 2590.1 2012.3 1563.5 464.4

9 0.0 0.0 842.1 1665.4 204.0 1182.8 914.9 702.8 214.3

10 0.0 0.0 253.8 489.9 39.2 195.9 127.2 49.0 49.0

11 0.0 0.0 1181.1 2279.3 182.3 011.7 592.0 228.0 228.0

12 0.0 0.0 4826.6 9321.0 756.8 3809.7 2496.9 1017.0 939.9

13 0.0 0.0 2509.1 4947.9 580.9 3330.4 2546.8 1897.5 619.7

14 0.0 0.0 1618.1 3201.2 393.6 2284.7 1769.0 1362.5 412.9

15 0.0 0.0 963.0 1858.5 148.7 743.4 482.7 185.9 185.9

16 0.0 0.0 1294.3 2497.9 199.8 999.1 648.7 249.9 249.9

17 0.0 0.0 1134.8 2191.8 178.6 900.7 591.7 244.2 221.5

18 0.0 0.0 2733.2 5305.3 477.8 2512.1 1742.1 935.6 566.7

19 0.0 0.0 2592.8 5106.4 588.5 3356.9 2553.4 1875.0 632.2

20 0.0 0.0 497.0 974.2 104.3 582.3 432.8 297.3 115.2

21 0.0 0.0 1231.0 2403.6 290.7 1675.0 1287.4 972.5 308.0

Table E-13

 

Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for 3D Seismic Airgun Surveys

Year

Modeled 

Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 12.5 12.5 12.5 18.7

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.2 33.9 33.9 33.9 50.8

3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.4 37.0 37.0 37.0 55.6

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 5.0

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 7.0 7.0 7.0 10.5

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 15.3 15.3 15.3 22.9

7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.2 31.3 31.3 31.3 46.9

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.9 29.4 29.4 29.4 44.1

9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 13.4 13.4 13.4 20.0

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.6

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 12.1

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.5 34.2 34.2 34.2 51.3

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 55.6

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 25.8 25.8 25.8 38.8

15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.9

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 8.9 8.9 8.9 13.3

17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 12.2

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.5 24.4 24.4 24.4 36.7

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.5 37.1 37.1 37.1 55.6

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 6.2 6.2 6.2 9.3

21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 18.8 18.8 18.8 28.1
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-61

Table E-14

 

Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for WAZ Seismic Airgun Surveys

Year

Modeled 

Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 6.4 12.5

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 19.5 33.9

3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 34.2 37.0

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.3 3.3

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 5.8 7.0

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.6 15.3

7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 18.0 31.3

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 27.7 29.4

9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 12.5 13.4

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.7

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 8.1

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 18.0 34.2

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 33.6 37.0

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 24.1 25.8

15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 6.6

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 8.9

17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.3 8.1

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 16.6 24.4

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 33.2 37.1

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.3 6.2

21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 17.2 18.8

Table E-15

 

Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for VSP Seismic Airgun Surveys

Year

Modeled 

Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6

9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4
E-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table E-16

 

Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for 90 Cubic Inch Airgun HRG Surveys for Oil and Gas Sites

Year

Modeled 

Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6

9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4

Table E-17

 

Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for Non-Airgun HRG Surveys for Marine Minerals Sites

Year

Modeled 

Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

22 0.004 0.004 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015

23 0.083 0.083 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.243 0.243 0.243 0.243

24 0.087 0.087 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135

25 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.123 0.123 0.123 0.123

26 0.087 0.087 0.386 0.386 0.386 0.258 0.258 0.258 0.258

27 0.083 0.083 0.279 0.279 0.279 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016

28 0.004 0.004 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241

29 0.004 0.004 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015

30 0.083 0.083 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.243 0.243 0.243 0.243

31 0.087 0.087 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135

32 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.123 0.123 0.123 0.123

33 0.087 0.087 0.386 0.386 0.386 0.258 0.258 0.258 0.258

34 0.083 0.083 0.279 0.279 0.279 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016

35 0.004 0.004 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-63

Table E-18

 

Adjusted Level of Effort in Blocks for Non-Airgun HRG Surveys for Renewable Energy Sites

Year

Modeled 

Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

22 0.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 0.000 0.000

23 6.708 7.208 7.208 7.208 7.208 7.208 0.500 0.000 0.000

24 4.833 7.333 7.333 7.333 7.333 7.333 2.500 0.000 0.000

25 1.875 1.875 1.875 1.875 1.875 1.875 0.000 0.000 0.000

26 6.708 9.208 9.208 9.208 9.208 9.208 2.500 0.000 0.000

27 4.208 4.208 4.208 4.208 4.208 4.208 0.000 0.000 0.000

28 2.500 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.500 0.000 0.000

29 0.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 0.000 0.000

30 6.708 7.208 7.208 7.208 7.208 7.208 0.500 0.000 0.000

31 4.833 7.333 7.333 7.333 7.333 7.333 2.500 0.000 0.000

32 1.875 1.875 1.875 1.875 1.875 1.875 0.000 0.000 0.000

33 6.708 9.208 9.208 9.208 9.208 9.208 2.500 0.000 0.000

34 4.208 4.208 4.208 4.208 4.208 4.208 0.000 0.000 0.000

35 2.500 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.500 0.000 0.000

7.5. AIM RESULTS AND ADJUSTMENTS

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 below. Incidental take 

calculations were made using the AIM© model, described above in Section 7.1. 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 

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.

The acoustic and impact modeling conducted to support this Programmatic EIS is by its very nature 

conservative and complex. It requires numerous assumptions to predict results in scenarios. Each of the 

inputs into the models is purposely developed to be conservative, and this conservativeness accumulates 

throughout the analysis. Further, the models do not take into account all of the extensive mitigation 

measures summarized in Table S-1 or other caveats discussed below. They should not be considered as 

expected levels of actual take.

These 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 
E-64 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. 

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., it was more powerful than most [about 95 percent] of the sources listed) 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. In addition, it was assumed that the modeled array 

was always at maximum power and that all airguns where 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 versus 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 nearfield) 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 

PEIS 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 

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 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-65

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 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 Section 7.4.3. 

So, although the take estimates provide quantifiable numbers to consider in the impact analysis 

(Chapter 4.2.2.2 of the Programmatic EIS), it is important to understand that these numbers represent 

highly conservative estimates of mostly unmitigated potential take. They should not be considered as 

expected levels of actual take. This is largely given the many minor conservative assumptions that 

ultimately result in an overestimation of potential impacts.

7.5.1. Modeling Results

The output results from AIM provide the number of Level A and Level B harassment takes for each 

species, by season, modeled region, and survey type that exceeded the specific threshold considered. 

Following the AIM runs, typically the resulting “ping-histories” or the individual received level values (in 

pressure or SPL units) for each of the modeled animats are available to be examined and summed into 

energy (SEL) units as needed. For this analysis, the TL modeling provided to the AIM model included 

both SPL and SEL values, so the received levels in the correct units are readily available without 

additional calculations. The individual animat’s SEL ping histories are then examined and summed for 

each animat to determine its total received energy, which is what is required to be compared to the 

threshold criteria. Note that nowhere in these calculations are any mitigation (e.g., ramp-ups or stopping 

transmissions) assumed or applied to the calculation. Finally, these results were then corrected to adjust 

for two parameters which were programmed into the modeling: (1) the density of animats/animals in the 

modeled area; and (2) the actual number of blocks that the model examined in each modeled region. As 

discussed previously, the animal densities used in the AIM modeling were deliberately kept high to 

ensure that a statistically valid result was obtained. Typically, these “modeled” densities are at least an 

order of magnitude greater than the actual marine mammal density present in the region. Therefore, the 

modeling result is corrected or scaled by the ratio of the actual density divided by the modeled density. 

The result of applying these two corrections to the AIM modeling is a set of three tables for each type of 

survey. Tables E-19 through E-21 are a representative example of these tables for the 2D seismic airgun 

surveys. Each of these three tables captures the seasonal and spatial variability of the results in the 

21 columns representing the 21 modeling regions, while providing the estimated impacts or takes for a 

specific threshold. The three tables, therefore, each represent one of the thresholds of interest. They are: 

(1) potential Level A impacts (takes) based on the Southall et al. (2007) criteria for one block of 2D 

survey effort; (2) potential Level A impacts (takes) based on the historic 180 dB (SPL) criterion for one 

block of 2D survey effort; and (3) the potential Level B impacts (takes) based on the historic 160 dB 

(SPL) criterion for one block of 2D survey effort.
E-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table E-19

 

Potential Level A Takes (number of individuals) for One Block of 2D Seismic Airgun Survey Effort, 

Based on the Southall et al. (2007) Injury Criteria

Common Name Modeled Site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common minke whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sei whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Bryde’s whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Blue whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Fin whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Humpback whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked common 

dolphin 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Pygmy killer whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Short-finned pilot whale 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

Long-finned pilot whale 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000

Risso’s dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000

Northern bottlenose whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Pygmy sperm whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Dwarf sperm whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Fraser's dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sowerby’s beaked whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Blainville’s beaked whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gervais’ beaked whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

True’s beaked whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Killer whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Melon-headed whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Harbor porpoise 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sperm whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

False killer whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.000

Clymene dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000

Striped dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.000

Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.107 0.000

Spinner dolphin: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Bottlenose dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Cuvier’s beaked whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian manatee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Acoustic Modeling 

and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results

E-67

Table E-20

 

Potential Level A Takes (number of individuals) for One Block of 2D Seismic Airgun Survey Effort,

Based on the Historic NMFS Criterion (180 dB)

Common Name Modeled Site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common minke whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sei whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Bryde’s whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Blue whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Fin whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000

Humpback whale 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked common 

dolphin 0.012 0.019 0.245 0.036 0.142 0.011 0.016 0.243 0.300 0.049 0.008 0.012 0.250 0.215 0.010 0.033 0.010 0.018 0.073 0.293 0.046

Pygmy killer whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Short-finned pilot whale 0.002 0.037 0.247 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.020 0.244 0.033 0.002 0.000 0.017 0.150 0.034 0.019 0.005 0.001 0.029 0.160 0.000 0.001

Long-finned pilot whale 0.001 0.009 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.024 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.005 0.015 0.004 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.000

Risso’s dolphin 0.010 0.017 0.103 0.014 0.049 0.001 0.019 0.126 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.127 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.008 0.103 0.014 0.035

Northern bottlenose whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Pygmy sperm whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Dwarf sperm whale 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Fraser's dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sowerby’s beaked whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Blainville’s beaked whale 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000

Gervais’ beaked whale 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000

True’s beaked whale 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000

Killer whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Melon-headed whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Harbor porpoise 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sperm whale 0.000 0.005 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

False killer whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.005 0.007 0.021 0.020 0.015 0.004 0.006 0.021 0.022 0.021 0.004 0.005 0.022 0.026 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.021 0.022 0.020

Clymene dolphin 0.002 0.003 0.010 0.009 0.007 0.002 0.003 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.010 0.011 0.010

Striped dolphin 0.006 0.072 0.221 0.024 0.022 0.005 0.052 0.025 0.027 0.025 0.004 0.012 0.203 0.026 0.013 0.075 0.008 0.007 0.025 0.027 0.025

Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.000 0.064 0.179 0.260 0.211 0.000 0.039 0.082 0.203 0.232 0.000 0.040 0.191 0.252 0.006 0.070 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.266 0.176

Spinner dolphin: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000

Bottlenose dolphin 0.005 0.017 0.350 0.353 0.049 0.005 0.083 0.356 0.035 0.033 0.004 0.074 0.464 0.274 0.010 0.107 0.007 0.110 0.417 0.217 0.261

Cuvier’s beaked whale 0.000 0.010 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.008 0.000 0.007 0.009 0.000 0.006 0.017 0.000 0.000

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian manatee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table E-21

 

Potential Level B Takes (number of individuals) for One Block of 2D Seismic Airgun Survey Effort, 

Based on the Historic NMFS Criterion (160 dB) 

Common Name Modeled Site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common minke whale 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003

Sei whale 0.002 0.003 0.010 0.009 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.010 0.010 0.009

Bryde’s whale 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.010 0.009

Blue whale 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.002 0.003 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.010 0.010

Fin whale 0.004 0.004 0.040 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.051 0.009 0.003 0.003 0.040 0.010 0.003 0.020 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.016 0.010

North Atlantic right whale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.142 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.016 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.012

Humpback whale 0.015 0.024 0.058 0.033 0.059 0.012 0.016 0.059 0.052 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked common 

dolphin 1.182 1.882 24.008 3.566 13.956 1.050 1.568 23.791 29.431 4.814 0.810 1.138 24.514 21.043 0.941 3.216 1.028 1.794 7.199 28.708 4.464

Pygmy killer whale 0.003 0.005 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.010 0.010 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.008 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.010 0.011 0.009

Short-finned pilot whale 0.240 3.668 24.254 0.324 0.125 0.062 1.962 23.899 3.197 0.156 0.025 1.666 14.658 3.365 1.875 0.482 0.076 2.886 15.713 0.047 0.138

Long-finned pilot whale 0.080 0.917 2.144 0.000 0.029 0.021 0.611 2.384 0.677 0.052 0.008 0.519 1.467 0.406 0.716 0.129 0.024 0.666 1.055 0.026 0.009

Risso’s dolphin 0.968 1.678 10.082 1.398 4.778 0.061 1.856 12.365 2.456 0.043 0.023 3.203 12.472 3.470 0.047 3.421 0.028 0.818 10.099 1.343 3.452

Northern bottlenose whale 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

Pygmy sperm whale 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.008 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.014

Dwarf sperm whale 0.025 0.030 0.061 0.025 0.042 0.025 0.034 0.061 0.017 0.045 0.023 0.029 0.061 0.049 0.027 0.027 0.020 0.025 0.061 0.018 0.041

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin 0.035 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.020 0.006 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.013 0.000 0.014 0.012 0.000

Fraser's dolphin 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sowerby’s beaked whale 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001

Blainville’s beaked whale 0.001 0.138 0.260 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.100 0.231 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.084 0.115 0.001 0.097 0.124 0.000 0.090 0.237 0.000 0.001

Gervais’ beaked whale 0.001 0.138 0.260 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.100 0.231 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.084 0.115 0.001 0.097 0.124 0.000 0.090 0.237 0.000 0.001

True’s beaked whale 0.001 0.138 0.260 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.100 0.231 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.084 0.115 0.001 0.097 0.124 0.000 0.090 0.237 0.000 0.001

Killer whale 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.011 0.002 0.003 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.008 0.002 0.012

Melon-headed whale 0.003 0.005 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.011 0.010 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.012 0.013 0.009

Harbor porpoise 0.022 0.021 0.073 0.000 0.016 0.009 0.010 0.040 0.009 0.053 0.002 0.002 0.008 0.007 0.018 0.024 0.016 0.007 0.028 0.017 0.011

Sperm whale 0.008 0.502 1.384 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.553 0.708 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.696 0.696 0.003 0.340 0.700 0.008 0.009 0.014 0.002 0.005

False killer whale 0.003 0.005 0.016 0.018 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.016 0.004 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.016 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.016 0.003 0.009

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin 0.498 0.676 2.083 1.940 1.451 0.383 0.543 2.038 2.198 2.011 0.347 0.472 2.118 2.528 0.587 0.614 0.632 0.587 2.038 2.172 2.003

Clymene dolphin 0.238 0.323 0.995 0.927 0.693 0.183 0.259 0.974 1.050 0.961 0.166 0.225 1.012 0.829 0.281 0.293 0.302 0.281 0.974 1.037 0.957

Striped dolphin 0.603 7.028 21.640 2.346 2.164 0.463 5.105 2.464 2.658 2.432 0.420 1.170 19.917 2.589 1.307 7.335 0.764 0.710 2.464 2.625 2.421

Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.047 6.291 17.501 25.444 20.654 0.036 3.830 8.064 19.944 22.762 0.033 3.964 18.751 24.709 0.583 6.814 0.060 0.055 1.107 26.046 17.263

Spinner dolphin: 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.010 0.009

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.021 0.029 0.049 0.054 0.067 0.021 0.026 0.049 0.086 0.056 0.019 0.024 0.047 0.037 0.022 0.026 0.027 0.020 0.049 0.088 0.047

Bottlenose dolphin 0.501 1.684 34.290 34.629 4.811 0.473 8.098 34.882 3.385 3.267 0.394 7.267 45.474 26.882 0.982 10.488 0.680 10.751 40.828 21.279 25.572

Cuvier’s beaked whale 0.005 0.965 1.818 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.698 1.620 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.588 0.804 0.004 0.677 0.868 0.003 0.629 1.657 0.002 0.004

ORDER SIRENIA

West Indian manatee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-69

Based on comments received to the Draft Programmatic EIS, harp seals were added to the marine 

mammals list but were not modeled. However, based on the densities in the NODE database, the number 

of Level A and Level B harassment takes for the harp seal would be zero.

Similar tables were produced for each of the seismic airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys to 

be conducted, including the following: 

Seismic Airgun Surveys

• 2D seismic surveys;

• 3D seismic surveys;

• WAZ seismic surveys;

• VSP seismic surveys; and

• HRG surveys (90 in3 airgun).

Non-Airgun HRG Surveys

• boomer HRG marine mineral surveys;

• boomer HRG renewable energy surveys;

• side-scan sonar HRG marine mineral surveys;

• side-scan sonar HRG renewable energy surveys;

• chirp subbottom profiler HRG marine mineral surveys;

• chirp subbottom profiler HRG renewable energy surveys;

• multibeam HRG marine mineral surveys; and

• multibeam HRG renewable energy surveys.

For the non-airgun HRG surveys, even though the individual surveys are typically conducted in 

roughly square nautical mile areas, all of the above tables were presented in a “per block” format to be 

consistent with the airgun surveys. Also, the LOE tables for these non-airgun surveys have been kept in 

that format.

Each of these “per block” survey results were multiplied by the appropriate LOE to estimate the 

number of incidental takes by species by modeled area for each year. Total annual takes are summarized 

in the following tables in the Attachment to this appendix: 

All Surveys (seismic airgun and non-airgun HRG)

• Table Attachment E-1: Level A incidental take using Southall criteria

• Table Attachment E-2: Level A incidental take using historic NMFS criterion 

(180 dB SPL)

• Table Attachment E-3: Level B incidental take using historic NMFS criterion 

(160 dB SPL)

All Seismic Airgun Surveys

• Table Attachment E-4: Level A incidental take using Southall criteria

• Table Attachment E-5: Level A incidental take using historic NMFS criterion 

(180 dB SPL)

• Table Attachment E-6: Level B incidental take using historic NMFS criterion 

(160 dB SPL)

All Non-Airgun HRG Surveys

• Table Attachment E-7: Level A incidental take using Southall criteria

• Table Attachment E-8: Level A incidental take using historic NMFS criterion 

(180 dB SPL)
E-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

• Table Attachment E-9: Level B incidental take using historic NMFS criterion 

(160 dB SPL)

Supporting tables for each year and survey type are available on BOEM’s website at http://

www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx. 

In general, due to their significant LOE and strong transmission signal, for any given year the 

combination of 2D and 3D surveys, account for about 90-95 percent of all takes, while all of the 

non-airgun survey efforts result in less than about 5 percent of takes for any given year. This is due to 

their lower source levels, beam patterns, and significantly lower LOE.

7.5.2. Discussion of the Uncertainty of the Modeling Effort

The task for this modeling effort was to use the best available science to estimate the potential 

impacts of the proposed action on marine mammals. There are several steps in the modeling effort and a 

degree of uncertainty associated with each step. The first step was outlining the proposed action, 

including defining the variety of sources and where and how they might be utilized. It is important to 

recognize that this is a Programmatic EIS to help BOEM develop a comprehensive understanding of the 

potential for multiple possible activities within three program areas (oil and gas, renewable energy, and 

marine minerals) to impact the marine environment over a 10-year period from 2012-2020. It is a 

framework under which future NEPA and MMPA evaluations of site-specific actions will occur, 

including requests for incidental take authorizations (ITAs), if necessary. Within those site-specific 

documents, much more refined actions will be outlined and evaluated.

To begin to outline the possible actions that may occur across three program areas for 10 years, 

representative conditions needed to be developed. In Chapter 3, projected activity levels for each of the 

three program areas were outlined. These activity levels are based on historic use of the area of interest 

(AOI) and interviews with industry representatives on anticipated survey interest. A variety of G&G 

techniques are used to characterize the shallow and deep structure of the shelf, slope, and deepwater 

ocean environments. The G&G surveys are conducted to (1) obtain data for hydrocarbon exploration and 

production; (2) aid in siting renewable energy structures; (3) locate potential sand and gravel 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 and the target of interest. With input of industry on data needs and 

interests, and the historical background of activity previously authorized by BOEM within the region, 

projected activity levels were developed. Because these are projected activity levels, there is uncertainty 

in the level and location of effort, but the best available data were used to determine the best estimates of 

activity and location.

Once the activities and locations were outlined, the characteristics of the active acoustic sources and 

the propagation conditions of the environment were defined. The active acoustic sources vary in their 

implementation based on the objective of the survey. Appendix D describes the acoustic characteristics 

of representative sources selected for analysis in the Programmatic EIS; other sources were not modeled 

as they either produce an acoustic field similar to another modeled source, or the sound field levels are 

negligible compared to other equipment. Depending on the objective and location of a particular survey, 

the acoustic sources may have a different configuration, which would influence the way that acoustic 

energy propagates away from it. The analyses described in this appendix and Appendix D used the best 

available, state-of-the-art acoustic models and databases for determining acoustic propagation and source 

characteristics. As described in detail in Appendix D, there are several major factors that affect sound 

propagation, including the sound source and characteristics of the location (water depth, bottom 

composition, sound velocity profile, etc.). In order to capture the full range of potential actions, 

105 acoustic field estimates were conducted, which included various permutations of six acoustic sources, 

35 modeling sites, two types of bottom composition, and 12 sound velocity profiles. These acoustic field 

estimates span the range of propagation conditions and G&G activities that may occur during the 

proposed action and bound the range of potential impacts.

The next step in the modeling effort was to define the marine mammals that may occur in the AOI 

during the proposed action. The best available data at the time of this analysis was the U.S. Navy’s 

NODE database (U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2007b), described in Section 6 of this appendix. The database 

consolidates cetacean density estimates from shipboard line-transect surveys conducted by the NOAA 
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-71

Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center between 1994 and 2006. There are advantages and 

disadvantages to using this database to estimate potential impacts. One advantage is that the database 

consolidated multiple surveys across several years. By spanning multiple years and oceanographic 

conditions, any bias associated with density estimates from single surveys that might not represent 

average oceanographic conditions is reduced. Furthermore, when sufficient data were available, spatially 

explicit, species-specific density surface models were derived that incorporated environmental covariates. 

These surface models utilized the environmental covariates to predict species density in regions where 

little survey effort had occurred, thereby reducing biases associated with broad-scale surveys that could

not sample the entire AOI. One disadvantage of the database is that the surveys included in the database 

occurred in 1994-2006. NOAA Fisheries maintains guidelines recommending that no data older than 

eight years be used to calculate potential biological removal in its stock assessment reports (Wade and 

Angliss, 1997). Some of the data included in the database are older than 8 years and might not reliably 

represent current conditions. In addition, the NODE database does not include confidence limits for 

density estimates.

The most significant drawback to the Southeast NODE database is that it assumes all animals located 

directly on the trackline were observed during the surveys. This assumption of line-transect theory is 

defined by the equation g(0)=1 (i.e., at a distance of 0, the probability of detecting a group is 1; Buckland 

et al., 1993, 2001). However, because of availability bias (i.e., animals are diving and not available to be 

seen at the ocean surface) and perception bias (i.e., animals at the surface are not detected by the survey 

team because of other factors, such as sun glare, sea state, or cryptic behaviors), this assumption is not 

met during cetacean line-transect surveys. In some surveys, attempts were made to estimate the fraction 

of groups missed on the transect line, to quantify the amount of bias associated with that survey. For the 

surveys incorporated into the Southeast NODE database, it was assumed that g(0)=1 because g(0) could 

not be calculated during the surveys and there were no g(0) estimates available for species in the 

southeast study area. Therefore, the density estimates in the NODE database are underestimates.

BOEM recognizes the limitations in the existing NODE database but used it for this Programmatic 

EIS as the best available data for a programmatic analysis of the entire AOI. BOEM expects that better 

density data will become available in the near future and is committed to using the best available new 

information as it becomes available. In 2011, NOAA convened a working group to map cetacean density 

and distribution (CetMap) within U.S. waters including the Atlantic and concurrently an underwater 

sound field working group (SoundMap) to characterize ocean noise. BOEM expects that the CetMap 

density data will be superior to the NODE database used for the calculations in this Programmatic EIS. 

However, the CetMap density data for the Atlantic were not available prior to the release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS and have not become available during the 12-month period following the close of the 

public comment period. Even though the data were not available for incorporation into either the Draft or 

the Final Programmatic EIS, BOEM will use the CetMap data for future G&G exploration reviews when 

the new data and and maps become available.

The final step in the modeling effort in this Programmatic EIS was to integrate the acoustic field 

estimates with the marine mammals to determine their acoustic exposure during a particular activity. 

Time-based integration models, such as the AIM used in this modeling effort and described in detail in 

Section 7 of this appendix, are necessary to fully evaluate the potential exposure. Under the oversight and 

sponsorship of NOAA/NMFS, the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) conducted a thorough review of 

AIM in 2006. The main findings were as follows: 

• AIM can correctly implement the models and data upon which it is based; 

• animal movement appears to be appropriately modeled within AIM; 

• the principles of credible science had been addressed during the development of 

AIM; 

• AIM is a useful and credible tool for developing application models; and

• the use of AIM can lead to models which will meet the Council for Regulatory 

Monitoring (CREM) guidelines for model development and evaluation.

Because the exact positions of sound sources and animals (sound receivers for the purpose of this 

analysis) cannot be known, multiple runs of realistic simulations are used to provide statistical validity of 

the predicted potential effects. The range of documented animal movement and diving behaviors are 

captured in probabilistic definitions of simulated behavior. Many more animals than could realistically be 
E-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

encountered during an activity are modeled. Both of these conservative measures help to fully bound the 

range of potential impacts.

The above discussion provides insight into the multiple steps in the modeling effort and the degree of 

certainty associated with the process. For each step, the best estimate for each data parameter was used to 

derive the best estimate of the potential impacts of the proposed action on the marine environment. 

BOEM does not believe it is realistic to develop confidence limits for incidental take estimates at this 

time for several reasons. First, incidental take applications and authorizations generally do not contain 

this information. Second, we do not believe it is appropriate to calculate confidence limits for Level A 

takes because we expect them to be avoided to the extent practicable through mitigation. The modeling in 

this appendix estimates Level A takes without mitigation (other than time-area closures), which is the 

typical method used in ITAs. Finally, with respect to Level B harassment takes, we note that the current 

NMFS criterion for pulsed sources (160 dB re 1 μPa) is widely recognized as a very simplistic predictor 

of behavioral responses, and there is much ongoing research and discussion to develop refined behavioral 

criteria. Therefore, we believe that calculating confidence limits for numbers of Level B harassment 

takes would imply a level of quantification and statistical certainty that does not currently exist.

8. REFERENCES CITED

Aguilar Soto, N., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, F. Diaz, I. Domínguez, A. Brito, and P.L. Tyack. 2008. 

Cheetahs of the deep sea: Deep foraging sprints in short-finned pilot whales off Tenerife (Canary 

Islands). Journal of Animal Ecology 77:936–947.

Alves, F., A. Dinis, I. Cascão, and L. Freitas. 2010. Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei) stable 

associations and dive profiles: New insights into foraging behavior. Marine Mammal Science 

26:202-212.

Alves, F., L. Freitas, and A. Dinis. 2006. Occurrence and diving behaviour of false killer whale off 

Madeira archipelago (NE Atlantic). In: 20th Conference of the European Cetacean Society B2. 

Gydnia, Poland. http://www.ecs2006gdynia.univ.gda.pl/abstract_posters.html#_Toc130698555. 

Accessed July 10, 2012.

Amano, M. and M. Yoshioka. 2003. Sperm whale diving behavior monitored using a 

suction-cup-attached TDR tag. Marine Ecology Progress Series 258:291-295.

American National Standards Institute. 1984. American National Standards Institute—American 

national standard preferred frequencies, frequency levels and band numbers for acoustic 

measurements. S1.6. Acoustical Society of America, New York, New York.

American National Standards Institute. 1986. American National Standards Institute—American 

National Standard Method for Measurement of Impulsive Noise. S12.7. Acoustical Society of 

America. New York, New York.

American National Standards Institute. 2004. American National Standards Institute—American 

national standard acoustic terminology. S1.1. Acoustical Society of America. New York, New York.

Anderson, R.C., R. Clark, P.T. Madsen, C. Johnson, J. Kiszka, and O. Breysse. 2006. Observations of 

Longman's Beaked Whale (Indopacetus pacificus) in the Western Indian Ocean. Aquatic Mammals 

32:223-231.

Aoki, K., M. Amano, M. Yoshioka, K. Mori, D. Tokuda, and N. Miyazaki. 2007. Diel diving behavior

of sperm whales off Japan. Marine Ecology Progress Series 349:277-287.

Archer, F.I. II and W.F. Perrin. 1999. Stenella coeruleoalba. Mammalian Species 603:1-9.

Bain, D.E., J.C. Smith, R. Williams, and D. Lusseau. 2006. Effects of vessels on behavior of southern 

resident killer whales (Orcinus spp.). NMFS Contract Report No. AB133F03SE0959 and 

AB133F04CN0040. 61 pp. Internet website: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cb/

ecosystem/marinemammal/documents/bain_land_based.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2011.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-73

Baird, R.W. 1994. Foraging behavior and ecology of transient killer whales (Orcinus orca). Ph.D. 

Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada. 159 pp.

Baird, R.W. 2005. Sightings of dwarf (Kogia sima) and pygmy (K. breviceps) sperm whales from the 

main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 59:461-466.

Baird, R.W., J.F. Borsani, M.B. Hanson, and P.L. Tyack. 2002. Diving and night-time behavior of 

long-finned pilot whales in the Ligurian Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 237:301-305.

Baird, R.W., M.B. Hanson, and L.M. Dill. 2005. Factors influencing the diving behaviour of fish-eating 

killer whales: Sex differences and diel and interannual variation in diving rates. Can. J. Zool. 

83:257-267.

Baird, R.W., A.D. Ligon, S.K. Hooker, and A.M. Gorgone. 2001. Subsurface and nighttime behaviour 

of pantropical spotted dolphins in Hawai'i. Can. J. Zool. 79:988-996.

Baird, R.W., D.L. Webster, D.J. McSweeney, A.D. Ligon, G.S. Schorr, and J. Barlow. 2006. Diving 

behaviour of Cuvier's (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville's (Mesoplodon densirostris) beaked whales 

in Hawai'i. Can. J. Zool. 84:1120-1128.

Baird, R.W., D.L. Webster, G.S. Schorr, D.J. McSweeney, and J. Barlow. 2008. Diel variation in beaked 

whale diving behavior. Marine Mammal Science 24:630-642.

Baker, C.S. and L.M. Herman. 1989. The behavioral responses of summering humpback whales to 

vessel traffic: Experimental and opportunistic observations. Anchorage, Alaska, U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior. National Park Service Technical Report NPS-NR-TRS-89-01. 50 pp.

Barlow, J. 1995. The abundance of cetaceans in California waters: Part I. Ship surveys in summer and 

fall of 1991. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin 93:1-14.

Baumgartner, M.F. and B.R. Mate. 2003. Summertime foraging ecology of North Atlantic right whales. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 264:123-135.

Baumgartner, M.F., K.D. Mullin, L.N. May, and T.D. Leming. 2001. Cetacean habitats in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin Seattle 99:219-239.

Benoit-Bird, K.J. and W.W.L. Au. 2003. Prey dynamics affect foraging by a pelagic predator 

(Stenella longirostris) over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Behavioral Ecology and 

Sociobiology 53:364-373.

Bishop, G.C., W.T. Ellison, and L.E. Mellberg. 1987. A simulation model for high-frequency under-ice 

reverberation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82:275-285.

Blix, A.S. and L.P. Folkow. 1995. Daily energy expenditure in free living minke whales. Acta 

Physiologica Scandinavica 153:61-66.

Brown, S.G. 1977. Some results of sei whale marking in the southern hemisphere. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm. (special issue)1:39-43.

Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, and J.L. Laake. 1993. Distance sampling: Estimating 

abundance of biological populations. Chapman and Hall, London. 446 pp.

Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, J.L. Laake, D.L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2001. 

Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abundances of biological populations. Oxford 

University Press, New York, NY.

Calambokidis, J., G.S. Schorr, G.H. Steiger, J. Francis, M. Bakhtiari, G. Marshall, E.M. Oleson, 

D. Gendron, K. Robertson. 2008. Insights into the underwater diving, feeding, and calling behavior 

of blue whales from a suction-cup-attached video-imaging tag (CRITTERCAM). Marine Technology 

Society Journal 41:19-29.

Caldwell, D.K., M.C. Caldwell, and R.V. Walker. 1976. First records for Fraser’s dolphin 

(Lagenodelphis hosei) in the Atlantic and the melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) in the 

western Atlantic. Cetology 25:4.
E-74 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Cañadas, A., R. Sagarminaga, and T.S. Garcia. 2002. Cetacean distribution related with depth and slope 

in the Mediterranean waters off southern Spain. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research 

Papers 49:2053-2073.

Charif, R.A., D.K. Mellinger, K.J. Dunsmore, and C.W. Clark. 2002. Estimated source levels of fin 

whale (Balaenoptera physalus) vocalizations: Adjustments for surface interference. Marine 

Mammal Science 18:81-98.

Chaudry, F.A. 2006. A comparison of east Australian humpback whale migratory behaviour between the 

northern and southern migrations. In: 20th Conference of the European Cetacean Society B9. 

Gydnia, Poland. http://www.ecs2006gdynia.univ.gda.pl/abstract_posters.html#_Toc130698562. 

Accessed July 10, 2012.

Chittleborough, R.G. 1953. Aerial observations of the humpback whale (Megaptera nodosa). Aust. 

J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 4:219-226.

Chu, K.C. 1988. Dive times and ventilation patterns of singing humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae). Can. J. Zool. 66:1322-1327.

Clapham, P.J. 1993. Social organization of humpback whales on a North Atlantic feeding ground. 

Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 66:131-145.

Coakes, A.K. and H. Whitehead. 2004. Social structure and mating system of sperm whales off northern 

Chile. Can J. Zool. 82:1360-1369.

Croll, D.A., A. Acevedo-Gutierrez, B.R. Tershy, and J. Urban-Ramirez. 2001. The diving behavior of 

blue and fin whales: Is dive duration shorter than expected based on oxygen stores? Comparative 

Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 129:797-809.

Croll, D.A., B.R. Tershy, R.P. Hewitt, D.A. Demer, P.C. Fiedler, S.E. Smith, W. Armstrong, J.M. Popp, 

T. Kiekhefer, V.R. Lopez, J. Urban, and D. Gendron. 1998. An integrated approach to the foraging 

ecology of marine birds and mammals. Deep Sea Research II 45:1353-1371.

Cummings, W.C. 1985. Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni Anderson, 1878. In: Ridgway, S.H. and 

R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals. Vol. 3: The sirenians and baleen whales. London: 

Academic Press. Pp. 137-154. 

Curren, K., N. Bose, and J. Lien. 1994. Swimming kinematics of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena) and an Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus). Marine Mammal Science 

10:485-492.

Dahlheim, M.E. and R.G. Towell. 1994. Occurrence and distribution of Pacific white-sided dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) in southeastern Alaska, with notes on an attack by killer whales 

(Orcinus orca). Marine Mammal Science 10:458-464.

Dalla Rosa, L., E.R. Secchi, Y.G. Maia, A.N. Zerbini, and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2008. Movements of 

satellite-monitored humpback whales on their feeding ground along the Antarctic Peninsula. Polar 

Biology 31(7):771-781.

Davis R.W., G.A.J. Worthy, B. Würsig, S.K. Lynn, and F.I. Townsend. 1996. Diving behavior and 

at-sea movements of an Atlantic spotted dolphin in the Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Mamm. 

Sci. 12:569-581.

Davis, R.W., G.S. Fargion, N. May, T.D. Leming, M. Baumgartner, W.E. Evans, L.J. Hansen, and 

K. Mullin. 1998. Physical habitat of cetaceans along the continental slope in the north-central and 

western Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science 14:490-507.

Davis, R.W., N. Jaquet, D. Gendron, U. Markaida, G. Bazzino, and W. Gilly. 2007. Diving behavior of 

sperm whales in relation to behavior of a major prey species, the jumbo squid, in the Gulf of 

California, Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 333:291-302.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-75

de Haro, J.C. and M.A. Iniguez. 1997. Ecology and behaviour of the Peale’s dolphin, Lagenorhynchus 

australis (Peale, 1848), at Cabo Virgenes (52° 30'S, 68° 28'W), in Patagonia, Argentina. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Comm. 47:723-727.

Doi, T. 1974. Further development of whale sighting theory. In: Schevill, W.E., ed. The whale 

problem: A status report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 359-368.

Dolar, L. and W. Perrin. 2003. Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) habitats in the Philippines. In: 15th 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Greensboro, NC. Pp. 44. 

Dolar, M.L.L., W.A. Walker, G.L. Kooyman, W.F. Perrin. 2003. Comparative feeding ecology of 

spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) and Fraser's dolphins (Lagenodelphis hosei) in the Sulu Sea. 

Marine Mammal Science 19:1-19.

Dolphin, W.F. 1987a. Ventilation and dive patterns of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, on 

their Alaskan feeding grounds. Can. J. Zool. 65:83-90.

Dolphin, W.F. 1987b. Dive behavior and estimated energy expenditure of foraging humpback whales in 

southeast Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 65:354-362.

Dolphin, W.F. 1988. Foraging dive patterns of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in Southeast 

Alaska USA: A cost-benefit analysis. Can J Zool 66:2432-2441.

Edwards, E.F. 2006. Duration of unassisted swimming activity for spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) 

calves: implications for mother-calf separation during tuna purse-seine sets. Fishery Bulletin 

104:125-135.

Ellison, W.T., C.W. Clark, and G.C. Bishop. 1987. Potential use of surface reverberation by bowhead 

whales, Balaena mysticetus, in under-ice navigation: Preliminary considerations. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm. 37:329-332.

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.

Evans, W.E. 1994. Common dolphin, white bellied porpoise (Delphnis delphis, Linnaeus, 1758). In: 

Ridgway, S. and R. Harrison, eds., Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 5. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press. Pp. 191-224. 

Fertl, D., T.A. Jefferson, I.B. Moreno, A.N. Zerbini, and K.D. Mullin. 2003. Distribution of the Clymene 

dolphin Stenella clymene. Mammal Review 33:253-271.

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., C.E. Schlundt, and S. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary shift in bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncates) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

118(4):2696-2705.

Fish, F.E. and J.J. Rohr. 1999. Review of dolphin hydrodynamics and swimming performance. Spawar 

Systems Center, San Diego, CA. 136 pp. + apps.

Ford, J.K.B. G.A. Ellis, D.R. Matkin, K.C. Balcomb, D. Briggs, and A.B. Morton. 2005. Killer whale 

attacks on minke whales: Prey capture and antipredator tactics. Marine Mammal Science 

21:603-618.

Frankel, A.S., C.W. Clark, L.M. Herman, and C.M. Gabriele. 1995. Spatial distribution, habitat 

utilization, and social interactions of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, off Hawai'i, 

determined using acoustic and visual techniques. Can. J. Zool. 73:1134-1146.

Frankel, A.S., W.T. Ellison, and J. Buchanan. 2002. Application of the Acoustic Integration Model 

(AIM) to predict and minimize environmental impacts. IEEE Oceans 2002:1438-1443.
E-76 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Gabriele, C.M., J.M. Straley, L.M. Herman, and R.J. Coleman. 1996. Fastest documented migration of a 

North Pacific humpback whale. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 12:457-464.

Gill, P.C. 2002. A blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) feeding ground in a southern Australian coastal 

upwelling zone. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4:179-184.

Goldbogen, J., J. Calambokidis, R.E. Shadwick, E.M. Oleson, M.A. McDonald, and J.A. Hildebrand. 

2006. Kinematics of foraging dives and lunge-feeding in fin whales. J. Exp. Biol. 209:1231-1244.

Goldbogen, J.A., J. Calambokidis, D.A. Croll, J.T. Harvey, K.M. Newton, E.M. Oleson, G. Schorr, and 

R.E. Shadwick. 2008. Foraging behavior of humpback whales: kinematic and respiratory patterns 

suggest a high cost for a lunge. Journal of Experimental Biology 211:3712-3719.

Greene, C.R., Jr. 1997. Physical acoustic measurements. In: Richardson, W.J., ed. Northstar marine 

mammal monitoring program, 1996 (LGL Report 2121-2, Section 3). LGL Ltd. report for BP 

Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 245 pp.

Harzen, S.E. 2002. Use of an electronic theodolite in the study of movements of the bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus) in the Sado Estuary, Portugal. Aquatic Mammals 28:251-260.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., D. Bloch, E. Stefansson, B. Mikkelsen, L.H. Ofstad, and R. Dietz. 2002. Diving 

behaviour of long-finned pilot whales Globicephala melas around the Faroe Islands. Wildlife 

Biology 8:307-313.

Heyning J.E. and W.F. Perrin. 1994. Evidence for two species of common dolphins (genus Delphinus) 

from the eastern North Pacific. Contributions in Science 442:1-35.

Hobson R.P. and A.R. Martin. 1996. Behaviour and dive times of Arnoux’s beaked whales, Berardius 

arnuxii, at narrow leads in fast ice. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:388-393.

Hohn, A., M. Scott, A. Westgate, J. Nicolas, and B. Whitaker. 1995. Radiotracking of a rehabilitated 

pygmy sperm whale. In: Eleventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

Orlando, FL. p. 55.

Hooker, S.K. and R.W. Baird. 1999a. Deep-diving behaviour of the northern bottlenose whale, 

Hyperoodon ampullatus (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological 

Sciences: Series B. 266:671-676.

Hooker, S.K. and R.W. Baird. 1999b. Observations of Sowerby’s beaked whales, Mesoplodon bidens, in 

the Gully, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:273-277.

Hui, C.A. 1987. Power and speed of swimming dolphins. Journal of Mammalogy 68:126-132.

Independent System for Peer Review. 2006. Summary report: Review of Acoustic Integration Model 

(AIM) 25-27 September, 2006. 134 pp. Internet Website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

permits/lfa_aim_review.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2011.

Jaquet, N., S. Dawson, and E. Slooten. 2000. Seasonal distribution and diving behaviour of male sperm 

whales off Kaikoura: Foraging implications. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:407-419.

Jaquet, N. and D. Gendron. 2002. Distribution and relative abundance of sperm whales in relation to key 

environmental features, squid landings and the distribution of other cetacean species in the Gulf of 

California, Mexico. Marine Biology 141:591-601.

Jaquet, N. and H. Whitehead. 1999. Movements, distribution and feeding success of sperm whales in the 

Pacific Ocean, over scales of days and tens of kilometers. Aquatic Mammals 25:1-13.

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, 

R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm 

whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 

341 pp.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-77

Johnson, M, P.T. Madsen, W.M.X. Zimmer, N. Aguilar de Soto, and P.L.Tyack. 2004. Beaked whales 

echolocate on prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 

271:S383-S386.

Joyce, G., N. Øien, J. Calmabokidis, and J.C. Cubbage. 1989. Surfacing rates of minke whales in 

Norwegian waters. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 39:431-434.

Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C.R. Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary threshold 

shift in pinnipeds: Effects of noise level and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

118(5):3154-3163.

Kastak, D., R.J. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold 

shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinniped. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 106(2):1142-1148.

Kastelein, R.A. and N.M. Gerrits. 1991. Swimming, diving, and respiration patterns of a northern 

bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus, Forster, 1770). Aquatic Mammals 17:20-30.

Kenney, R.D. and H.E. Winn. 1986. Cetacean high-use habitats of the northeast United States 

continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 84:345-357.

Klatsky, L.J., R.S. Wells, and J.C. Sweeney. 2007. Offshore bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): 

movement and dive behavior near the Bermuda pedestal. Journal of Mammalogy 88:59-66.

Kooyman, G.L. and H.T. Andersen. 1969. Deep diving. In: Andersen, H.T., ed. Biology of marine 

mammals. New York, NY: Academic Press. Pp. 65-94. 

Kopelman, A.H. and S.S. Sadove. 1995. Ventilatory rate differences between surface-feeding and 

non-surface-feeding fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in the waters off eastern Long Island, New 

York, U.S.A., 1981-1987. Marine Mammal Science 11:200-208.

Kriete, B. 2002. Bioenergetic changes from 1986 to 2001 in the southern resident killer whale 

population, Orcinus orca. Orca Relief Citizens' Alliance. 26 pp. http://www.orcarelief.org/docs/

kriete_paper.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2012.

Lagerquist, B.A., K.M. Stafford, and B.R. Mate. 2000. Dive characteristics of satellite-monitored blue 

whales (Balaenoptera musculus) off the central California coast. Marine Mammal Science 

16:375-391.

Laurie, A.H. 1933. Some aspects of respiration in fin and blue whales. Discovery Reports 7:365-406.

Leatherwood, S. and D.K. Ljungblad. 1979. Nighttime swimming and diving behavior of a radio tagged 

spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata. Cetology 34:1-6.

Leatherwood, S., W.F. Perrin, V.L. Kirby, C.L. Hubbs, and M. Dahlheim. 1980. Distribution and 

movements of Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus in the eastern North Pacific. Fishery Bulletin

77:951-964.

Ligon, A.D. and R.W. Baird. 2001. Diving behaviour of false killer whales off Maui and Lana’i, 

Hawai’i. In: 14th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Vancouver, Canada.

Lockyer, C. 1976. Body Weights of Some Species of Large Whales. Journal du Conseil/Conseil 

International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 36:259-273.

Lockyer, C. 1997. Diving behaviour of the sperm whale in relation to feeding. Bulletin de l’Institut 

Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique Biologie 67:47-52.

Lockyer, C. and R.J. Morris. 1986. The history and behavior of a wild, sociable bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus) off the north coast of Cornwall (England, UK). Aquatic Mammals 12:3-16.

Lockyer, C. and R. Morris. 1987. Observations on diving behavior and swimming speeds in a wild 

juvenile Tursiops truncatus. Aquatic Mammals 13:31-35.
E-78 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Loughlin, T.R. 1982. Observations of Mesoplodon stejnegeri in the central Aleutian Islands, Alaska. 

Journal of Mammalogy 63:697-700.

MacLeod, C.D. and A.F. Zuur. 2005. Habitat utilization by Blainville’s beaked whales off Great Abaco, 

northern Bahamas, in relation to seabed topography. Marine Biology 147:1-11.

Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: Problems with root-mean-squared sound pressure level 

for transients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117:3952-3957.

Mate, B.R., R. Gisiner, and J. Mobley. 1998. Local and migratory movements of Hawaiian humpback 

whales tracked by satellite telemetry. Can. J. Zool. 76:863-868.

Mate, B.R., B.A. Lagerquist, and J. Calambokidis. 1999. Movements of North Pacific blue whales 

during the feeding season off southern California and their southern fall migration. Marine Mammal 

Science 15:1246-1257.

Mate, B.R., B.A. Lagerquist, M. Winsor, J. Geraci, and J.H. Prescott. 2005. Movements and dive habits 

of a satellite-monitored longfinned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) in the northwest Atlantic. 

Marine Mammal Science 21:136-144.

Mate, B.R., S.L. Nieukirk, and S.D. Kraus. 1997. Satellite-monitored movements of the northern right 

whale. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1393-1405.

Mate, B.R., K.A. Rossbach, S.L. Nieukirk, R.S. Wells, A.B. Irvine, M.D. Scott, and A.J. Read. 1995. 

Satellite-monitored movements and dive behaviour of a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in 

Tampa Bay, Florida. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 11:452-463.

Mate, B.R., K.M. Stafford, R. Nawojchik, and J.L Dunn. 1994. Movements and dive behavior of a 

satellite-monitored Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) in the Gulf of Maine. 

Marine Mammal Science 10:116-121.

May-Collado, L. and A.M. Ramirez. 2005. Occurrence and behavioral patterns of the spotted coastal 

dolphin Stenella attenuata (Cetacea : Delphinidae) in the Gulf of Papagayo, Costa Rica. Revista De 

Biologia Tropical 53:265-276.

May-Collado, L., T. Gerrodette, J. Calambokidis, K. Rasmussen,and I. Sereg. 2005. Patterns of cetacean 

sighting distribution in the Pacific Exclusive Economic Zone of Costa Rica based on data collected 

from 1979-2001. Revista De Biologia Tropical 53:249-263.

McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of 

observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA J. 38:692-707.

Miller, P.J.O., M.P. Johnson, P.L. Tyack, and E.A. Terray. 2004. Swimming gaits, passive drag and 

buoyancy of diving sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus. Journal of Experimental Biology 

207:1953-1967.

Miyazaki, N. and S. Wada. 1978. Frasers dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei in the western North Pacific. 

Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute Tokyo 30:231-244.

Morris, C. and U. Tscherter. 2006. Site fidelity of individual minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 

in the St. Lawrence estuary. In: 20th Conference of the European Cetacean Society CH4. Gydnia, 

Poland. Internet website: http://www.ecs2006gdynia.univ.gda.pl/abstract_

posters.html#_Toc130698614. Accessed July 10, 2012.

Mullin, K.D., W. Hoggard, and L.J. Hansen. 2004. Abundance and seasonal occurrence of cetaceans in 

outer continental shelf and slope waters of the North-central and Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf 

of Mexico Science 1:62-73.

National Research Council. 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-79

National Research Council. 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise: Determining when 

noise causes biologically significant effects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 99 pp. 

+ apps. Internet website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11147&page=1. Accessed 

September 6, 2011.

Nawojchik, R., D.J. St. Aubin, and A. Johnson. 2003. Movements and dive behavior of two stranded, 

rehabilitated long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) in the northwest Atlantic. Marine 

Mammal Science 19:232-239.

Norris, K.S. and J.H. Prescott. 1961. Observations on Pacific cetaceans of Californian and Mexican 

waters. University of California Publications in Zoology 63:291-402.

Norris, K.S. and T.P. Dohl. 1980. Behavior of the Hawaiian spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris. Fish. 

Bull. 77:821-849.

Nøttestad, L., A. Ferno, and B.E. Axelsen. 2002. Digging in the deep: Killer whales’ advanced hunting 

tactic. Polar Biology 25:939-941.

Nousek McGregor, A.E. 2010. The cost of locomotion in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis). Ph.D., Duke University.

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 Series 

B-Biological Sciences 271:227-231.

Øien, N., L. Folkow, and C. Lydersen. 1990. Dive time experiments on minke whales in Norwegian 

waters during the 1988 season. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 40:337-341.

Olavarria, C., L.A. Aguayo, and R. Bernal. 2001. Distribution of Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus, 

Cuvier 1812) in Chilean waters. Revista de Biologia Marina y Oceanografia 36:111-116.

Olsen, E. and J.C. Holst. 2001. A note on common minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) diets in 

the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3:179-183.

Olsen, E., W.P. Budgell, E. Head, L. Kleivane, L. Nottestad, R. Prieto, M.A. Silva, H. Skov, 

G.A. Vikingsson, G. Waring, and N. Oien. 2009. First satellite-tracked long-distance movement of a 

sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) in the North Atlantic. Aquatic Mammals 35:313-318.

Otani, S. 2000. Diving behavior and swimming speed of a free-ranging harbor porpoise, Phocoena 

phocoena. Marine Mammal Science 16:811-814.

Palka, D. and M. Johnson, (eds.). 2007. Cooperative research to study dive patterns of sperm whales in 

the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-033. 49 pp.

Panigada, S., G. Nortarbartolo di Sciara, M. Panigada, S. Airoldi, J. Borsani, and M. Jahoda. 2005. Fin 

whales (Balaenoptera physalus) summering in the Ligurian Sea: Distribution, encounter rate, mean 

group size and relation to physiographic variables. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 

7:137-145.

Panigada, S., M. Zanardelli, S. Canese, and M. Jahoda. 1999. How deep can baleen whales dive? 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 187:309-311.

Papastavrou, V., S.C. Smith, and H. Whitehead. 1989. Diving behavior of the sperm whale Physeter

macrocephalus off the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Can. J. Zool. 67:839-846.

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 117:3297-3306.

Ramirez, N., D. Schulte, and J. Kennedy. 2006. Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) behavior on 

Jeffreys Ledge in the Gulf Of Maine. In: 20th Conference of the European Cetacean Society B22. 

Gydnia, Poland. Internet website: http://www.ecs2006gdynia.univ.gda.pl/

abstract_posters.html#¬_Toc130698575. Accessed July 10, 2012.
E-80 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Reilly, S.B. and V.G. Thayer. 1990. Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Distribution in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 6:265-277.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ridoux, V., C. Guinet, C. Liret, P. Creton, R. Steenstrup, and G. Beauplet. 1997. A video sonar as a new 

tool to study marine mammals in the wild: Measurements of dolphin swimming speed. Mar. Mamm. 

Sci. 13:196-206.

Ritter, F. and B. Brederlau. 1999. Behavioural observations of dense beaked whales (Mesoplodon 

densirostris) off La Gomera, Canary Islands (1995-1997). Aquatic Mammals 25:55-61.

Robison, B.H. and J.E. Craddock. 1983. Mesopelagic fishes eaten by Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis 

hosei. Fishery Bulletin 81:283-290.

Rohr, J.J., F.E. Fish, and J.W. Gilpatrick. 2002. Maximum swim speeds of captive and free-ranging 

delphinids: Critical analysis of extraordinary performance. Marine Mammal Science 18:1-19.

Schilling, M.R., I. Seipt, M.T. Weinrich, A.E. Kuhlberg, and P.J. Clapham. 1992. Behavior of 

individually-identified sei whales Balaenoptera borealis during an episodic influx into the southern 

gulf of maine in 1986. Fish. Bull. 90:749-755.

Scott, M.D., A.A. Hohn, A.J. Westgate, J.R. Nicolas, B.R. Whitaker, and W.B. Campbell. 2001. A note 

on the release and tracking of a rehabilitated pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps). Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management 3:87-94.

Scott, T.M. and S.S. Sadove. 1997. Sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus, sightings in the shallow 

shelf waters off Long Island, New York. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 13:317-320.

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. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4:141-153.

Shane, S.H. 1995. Behavior patterns of pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins off Santa Catalina Island, 

California. Aquatic Mammals 21:195-197.

Silber, G.K., M.W. Newcomer, and H.M. Pérez-Cortés. 1990. Killer whales (Ornicus orca) attack and 

kill a Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni). Can. J. Zool. 68:1603-1606.

Silber, G.K., M.W. Newcomer, P.C. Silber, M.H. Pérez-Cortés, and G.M. Ellis. 1994. Cetaceans of the 

northern Gulf of California: Distribution, occurrence, and relative abundance. Marine Mammal 

Science 10:283-298.

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, 

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. 

Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 

33:411-521.

Stern, S.J. 1992. Surfacing rates and surfacing patterns of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 

off central California, and the probability of a whale surfacing within visual range. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission 42:379-385.

Stockin, K.A., R.S. Fairbairns, E.C.M. Parsons, D.W. Sims. 2001. Effects of diel and seasonal cycles on 

the dive duration of the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom 81:189-190.

Stone, G.S., S.K. Katona, M. Mainwaring, J.M. Allen, and H.D. Corbett. 1992. Respiration and 

surfacing rates of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) observed from a lighthouse tower. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Comm. 42:739-745.
Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results E-81

Teloni,V., J.P. Mark, M.J.O. Patrick, and M.T. Peter. 2008. Shallow food for deep divers: Dynamic 

foraging behavior of male sperm whales in a high latitude habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology 354:119-131.

Tyack, P.L., M. Johnson, N.A. Soto, A. Sturlese, and P.T. Madsen. 2006. Extreme diving of beaked 

whales. Journal of Experimental Biology 209:4238-4253.

University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory. 1994. APL UW high frequency ocean 

environmental acoustic models handbook. APL UW Technical Report 9407. Internet website: 

http://staff.washington.edu/dushaw/epubs/APLTM9407.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2001. Final overseas environmental impact statement and environmental impact 

statement for SURTASS/LFA. U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Southern Division, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, North Charleston, SC.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2007a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement for surveillance 

towed array sensor system low frequency active (SURTASS/LFA) sonar.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2007b. Navy OPAREA density estimates (NODE) for the southeast OPAREAS: 

VACAPES, CHPT, JAX/CHASN, and southeastern Florida & AUTEC-ANDROS. U.S. Dept. of the 

Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic: Norfolk, VA. Contract N62470-02-D-9997, 

Task Order 0060. Prepared by GeoMarine Inc.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2008. Final Atlantic fleet active sonar training environmental impact statement/ 

overseas environmental impact statement..

Wade, P.R. and R.P. Angliss. 1997. Guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks: Report of the 

GAMMS Workshop, April 3-5, 1996, Seattle, WA. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-OPR-12. 93 pp.

Wahlberg, M. 2002. The acoustic behaviour of diving sperm whales observed with a hydrophone array. 

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 281:53-62.

Watkins, W.A. 1981. Activities and underwater sounds of fin whales. The Scientific Reports of the 

Whales Research Institute 33:83-117.

Watkins, W.A., M.A. Daher, K. 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, N.A. DiMarzio, A. Samuels, D. Wartzok, K.M. Fristrup, D.P. Gannon, 

P.W. Howey, R.R. Maiefski, and T.R. Spradlin. 1999. Sperm whale surface activity from tracking 

by radio and satellite tags. Marine Mammal Science 15:1158-1180.

Watkins, W.A., M.A. Daher, N.A. DiMarzio, A. Samuels, D. Wartzok, K.M. Fristrup, P.W. Howey, and 

R.R. Maiefski. 2002. Sperm whale dives tracked by radio tag telemetry. Marine Mammal Science 

18:55-68.

Weinrich, M.T., C.R. Belt, and D. Morin. 2001. Behavior and ecology of the Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) in coastal New England waters. Marine Mammal Science 

17:231-248.

Weir, C.R. 2000. Sightings of beaked whales species (Cetacea: Ziphiidae) in the waters to the north and 

west of Scotland and the Faroe Islands. European Research on Cetaceans – 14. Proceedings of the 

Fourteenth Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society. Cork Ireland, 2-5April 2000. 

Pp. 239-243. Internet website: http://www.ketosecology.co.uk/Weir(2000)_Ziphids.pdf. Accessed 

July 10, 2012.

Wells, R.S., H.L. Rhinehart, P. Cunningham, J. Whaley, M. Baran, C. Koberna, and D.P. Costa. 1999. 

Long distance offshore movements of bottlenose dolphins. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15:1098-1114.
E-82 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Westgate, A.J., A.J.Read, P. Berggren, H.N. Koopman, and D.E. Gaskin. 1995. Diving behaviour of 

harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

52:1064-1073.

Whitehead, H., S.C. Smith, and V. Papastavrou. 1989. Diving behavior of the sperm whale, 

Physeter macrocephalus, off the Galapagos Islands. Can. J. Zool. 67:839-846.

Whitehead, H., S. Brennan, and D. Grover. 1992. Distribution and behavior of male sperm whales on the 

Scotian Shelf, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:912-918.

Williams, R., D.E. Bain, J.K.B. Ford, and A.W. Trites. 2002. Behavioural responses of male killer 

whales to a ‘leapfrogging’ vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4:305-310.

Williams, T.M., R.W. Davis, L.A. Fuiman, J. Francis, B.B.J. Le, M. Horning, J. Calambokidis, and 

D.A. Croll. 2000. Sink or swim: Strategies for cost-efficient diving by marine mammals. Science 

288:133-136.

Winn, H.E., J.D. Goodyear, R.D. Kenney, and R.O. Petricig. 1995. Dive patterns of tagged right whales 

in the Great South Channel. Cont. Shelf. Res. 15:593-611.

Witteveen, B.H., R.J. Foy, K.M. Wynne, and Y. Tremblay. 2008. Investigation of foraging habits and 

prey selection by humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) using acoustic tags and concurrent 

fish surveys. Marine Mammal Science 24:516-534.

Woodley, T.H. and D.E. Gaskin. 1996. Environmental characteristics of North Atlantic right and fin 

whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 74:75-84.

Würsig, B. and M. Würsig. 1979. Behavior and ecology of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in 

the South Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 77:399-412.

Yin, S.E. 1999. Movement patterns, behaviors, and whistle sounds of dolphin groups off Kaikoura, New 

Zealand. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 108 pp.
Acoustic Modeling 

and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results

E-83

ATTACHMENT: SUMMARY TABLES OF TOTAL ANNUAL TAKE ESTIMATES

Table Attachment E-1 

 

All Surveys (airgun and non-airgun) – Total Annual Level A Takes (number of individuals) Using Southall Criteria

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 0.084 0.161 0.018 0.067 0.047 0.022 0.024

Sei Whale 0.002 0.002 0.211 0.405 0.049 0.172 0.121 0.061 0.068

Bryde's Whale 0.002 0.003 0.635 1.240 0.147 0.716 0.536 0.364 0.173

Blue Whale 0.000 0.000 0.831 1.623 0.181 0.908 0.672 0.443 0.215

Fin Whale 0.015 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.018 0.005 0.000 0.000

North Atlantic Right Whale 0.002 0.003 0.039 0.074 0.011 0.047 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 4.094 5.223 121.807 230.677 24.072 100.657 65.225 28.714 23.101

Pygmy Killer Whale 0.000 0.001 0.162 0.313 0.062 0.159 0.130 0.082 0.091

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 0.005 0.011 11.627 22.508 74.427 55.171 93.699 123.153 153.571

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 1.863 2.229 372.779 733.668 89.369 503.600 385.481 290.103 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 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.087 0.047 0.081 0.083 0.138

Dwarf Sperm Whale 0.014 0.019 2.838 5.583 1.345 4.218 3.681 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 0.209 0.403 0.033 0.162 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 0.003 0.006 0.058 0.106 0.039 0.059 0.056 0.040 0.056

Melon-Headed Whale 0.000 0.000 0.161 0.313 0.062 0.158 0.129 0.082 0.091

Harbor Porpoise 0.001 0.001 2.065 3.995 0.656 1.914 1.510 0.963 1.012

Sperm Whale 0.001 0.001 0.096 0.185 0.016 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 0.448 0.587 136.558 264.052 35.998 127.698 96.680 61.943 53.868

Clymene Dolphin 0.214 0.280 65.241 126.151 17.198 61.008 46.189 29.593 25.736

Striped Dolphin 0.595 0.767 528.228 1021.267 158.742 487.628 383.634 258.793 256.816

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 5.399 6.957 778.669 1503.662 208.965 747.752 566.636 369.930 303.780

Spinner Dolphin 0.002 0.003 0.614 1.187 0.162 0.574 0.435 0.278 0.242

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.050 0.036 0.048 26.189 0.075

Bottlenose Dolphin 1.298 2.142 17.135 31.297 24.044 30.537 35.859 39.268 42.313

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 0.001 0.002 10.214 19.711 1.578 7.884 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
E-84 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table Attachment E-2 

 

All Surveys (airgun and non-airgun) – Total Annual Level A Takes (number of individuals) Using Historic NMFS Criterion (180 dB)

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 0.365 0.285 0.197 0.144

Sei Whale 0.000 0.000 1.966 3.855 0.648 2.474 2.010 1.568 0.928

Bryde's Whale 0.000 0.000 1.948 3.820 0.642 2.445 1.987 1.549 0.920

Blue Whale 0.001 0.001 2.183 4.275 0.701 2.654 2.140 1.633 1.003

Fin Whale 0.001 0.002 4.401 8.639 1.509 5.681 4.661 3.707 2.185

North Atlantic Right Whale 0.002 0.003 1.164 2.293 0.613 1.760 1.600 1.467 0.866

Humpback Whale 0.003 0.003 5.901 11.546 1.857 7.074 5.674 4.277 2.638

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked Common Dolphin 1.219 1.459 3122.878 6148.048 1115.753 4284.442 3553.253 2921.201 1615.095

Pygmy Killer Whale 0.000 0.001 2.253 4.410 0.706 2.709 2.171 1.636 0.999

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 0.013 0.017 2354.317 4631.150 840.273 3170.293 2628.399 2146.148 1226.868

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 0.003 0.003 297.403 582.364 96.848 362.033 293.016 224.532 140.102

Risso’s Dolphin 0.091 0.112 1619.783 3180.578 551.281 2096.002 1718.057 1368.235 798.633

Northern Bottlenose Whale 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.250 0.043 0.174 0.143 0.116 0.061

Pygmy Sperm Whale 0.001 0.002 2.372 4.594 0.561 2.142 1.563 0.872 0.772

Dwarf Sperm Whale 0.003 0.005 14.849 29.009 4.269 16.957 13.306 9.596 5.951

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 0.000 0.000 4.668 9.152 1.468 5.795 4.659 3.574 2.067

Fraser's Dolphin 0.000 0.001 0.243 0.469 0.056 0.211 0.152 0.080 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 45.465 35.992 26.242 16.771

Gervais' Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 39.568 77.313 11.835 45.465 35.992 26.242 16.771

True's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 39.568 77.313 11.835 45.465 35.992 26.242 16.771

Killer Whale 0.001 0.001 1.966 3.844 0.603 2.310 1.840 1.363 0.854

Melon-Headed Whale 0.000 0.001 2.523 4.943 0.818 3.099 2.506 1.925 1.171

Harbor Porpoise 0.002 0.002 7.056 13.800 2.246 8.378 6.736 5.074 3.242

Sperm Whale 0.000 0.000 158.828 309.724 44.502 173.128 134.561 93.598 62.379

False Killer Whale 0.000 0.001 2.802 5.492 0.930 3.501 2.849 2.219 1.337

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 0.304 0.445 447.192 876.533 146.418 560.370 454.376 353.146 208.593

Clymene Dolphin 0.145 0.213 207.399 406.406 67.598 258.364 209.218 161.992 96.255

Striped Dolphin 0.396 0.575 2039.432 3993.807 651.474 2484.216 2001.592 1526.857 930.479

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 3.461 4.927 2983.959 5852.577 993.875 3818.018 3108.774 2447.448 1409.673

Spinner Dolphin 0.001 0.002 1.951 3.823 0.636 2.430 1.968 1.524 0.906

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 0.006 0.007 13.762 26.895 4.286 16.056 12.829 9.515 6.129

Bottlenose Dolphin 0.938 1.406 5978.504 11749.675 2092.311 7910.110 6525.719 5268.738 3028.705

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 0.000 0.000 276.973 541.189 82.842 318.256 251.943 183.694 117.398

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
Acoustic Modeling 

and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results

E-85

Table Attachment E-3 

 

All Surveys (airgun and non-airgun) – Total Annual Level B Takes (number of individuals) Using Historic NMFS Criterion (160 dB)

Marine Mammal Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)

Common Minke Whale 0.022 0.029 33.552 65.312 9.887 35.746 27.976 19.270 14.158

Sei Whale 0.036 0.048 192.676 377.852 63.517 242.451 197.032 153.667 90.922

Bryde's Whale 0.036 0.047 190.946 374.409 62.955 239.663 194.766 151.772 90.214

Blue Whale 0.066 0.098 214.005 418.979 68.725 260.084 209.774 160.036 98.302

Fin Whale 0.115 0.160 431.371 846.749 147.899 556.747 456.786 363.296 214.176

North Atlantic Right Whale 0.194 0.246 114.095 224.739 60.098 172.494 156.800 143.799 84.922

Humpback Whale 0.245 0.328 578.309 1131.575 181.990 693.318 556.149 419.221 258.568

Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises)

Short-beaked Common Dolphin 119.444 142.983 306073.239 602570.182 109354.910 419918.182 348254.315 286306.930 158295.425

Pygmy Killer Whale 0.034 0.049 220.825 432.243 69.155 265.498 212.809 160.343 97.950

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 1.292 1.629 230746.601 453899.015 82355.144 310720.375 257609.343 210343.995 120245.361

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 0.262 0.320 29148.479 57077.465 9492.066 35482.820 28718.497 22006.375 13731.407

Risso’s Dolphin 8.944 10.958 158754.967 311728.435 54031.021 205429.110 168386.746 134100.755 78273.997

Northern Bottlenose Whale 0.000 0.000 12.462 24.544 4.259 17.031 14.000 11.400 6.015

Pygmy Sperm Whale 0.112 0.150 232.504 450.223 54.935 209.923 153.146 85.507 75.617

Dwarf Sperm Whale 0.336 0.451 1455.336 2843.191 418.399 1661.964 1304.137 940.513 583.263

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 0.003 0.005 457.486 896.992 143.832 567.940 456.642 350.280 202.615

Fraser's Dolphin 0.035 0.057 23.781 45.946 5.491 20.650 14.849 7.792 7.488

Sowerby's Beaked Whale 0.002 0.003 19.913 38.908 5.905 22.877 18.076 13.154 8.304

Blainville's Beaked Whale 0.002 0.003 3878.018 7577.417 1159.905 4456.041 3527.568 2571.983 1643.742

Gervais' Beaked Whale 0.002 0.003 3878.018 7577.417 1159.905 4456.041 3527.568 2571.983 1643.742

True's Beaked Whale 0.003 0.003 3878.019 7577.418 1159.905 4456.041 3527.568 2571.983 1643.742

Killer Whale 0.051 0.064 192.657 376.717 59.070 226.357 180.328 133.634 83.748

Melon-Headed Whale 0.036 0.053 247.292 484.433 80.188 303.734 245.652 188.696 114.732

Harbor Porpoise 0.154 0.172 691.548 1352.566 220.178 821.083 660.231 497.283 317.753

Sperm Whale 0.018 0.021 15566.727 30356.018 4361.685 16968.298 13188.312 9173.569 6113.787

False Killer Whale 0.039 0.058 274.585 538.272 91.171 343.171 279.236 217.454 131.030

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 29.753 43.645 43829.255 85909.037 14350.425 54921.838 44533.415 34611.829 20444.174

Clymene Dolphin 14.215 20.851 20327.206 39831.854 6625.244 25322.211 20505.465 15876.869 9433.977

Striped Dolphin 38.853 56.401 199884.688 391433.034 63850.968 243477.994 196176.044 149647.258 91196.244

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 339.182 482.888 292457.860 573611.088 97409.708 374203.969 304690.978 239874.373 138162.050

Spinner Dolphin 0.131 0.190 191.219 374.705 62.320 238.208 192.899 149.359 88.749

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 0.555 0.728 1348.839 2636.003 420.112 1573.606 1257.388 932.571 600.688

Bottlenose Dolphin 91.950 137.760 585953.172 1151585.614 205067.371 775269.861 639585.714 516389.050 296843.403

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 0.016 0.018 27146.128 53041.920 8119.334 31192.284 24692.973 18003.881 11506.197

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
E-86 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table Attachment E-4 

 

All Seismic Airgun Surveys – Total Annual Level A Takes (number of individuals) Using Southall Criteria

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
Acoustic Modeling 

and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results

E-87

Table Attachment E-5 

 

All Seismic Airgun Surveys – Total Annual Level A Takes (number of individuals) Using Historic NMFS Criterion (180 dB)

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
E-88 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table Attachment E-6 

 

All Seismic Airgun Surveys – Total Annual Level B Takes (number of individuals) Using Historic NMFS Criterion (160 dB)

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
Acoustic Modeling 

and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results

E-89

Table Attachment E-7 

 

All Non-Airgun HRG Surveys – Total Annual Level A Takes (number of individuals) Using Southall Criteria

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 0.0000 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
E-90 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table Attachment E-8 

 

All Non-Airgun HRG Surveys – Total Annual Level A Takes (number of individuals) Using Historic NMFS Criterion (180 dB)

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
Acoustic Modeling 

and Marine Mammal Incidental Take Methodology, Analysis, and Results

E-91

Table Attachment E-9 

All Non-Airgun HRG Surveys – Total Annual Level B Takes (number of individuals) Using Historic NMFS Criterion (160 dB)

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

APPENDIX F 

 

PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS

Physical and Environmental Settings F-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY .................................................................................................... F-1

1.1. Regional Geologic Description............................................................................................... F-1

1.2. Geologic History and Sedimentary Basins ............................................................................. F-4

1.3. Sediments................................................................................................................................ F-6

2. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... F-8

3. WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................................ F-10

4. METEOROLOGY .......................................................................................................................... F-11

5. AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................................... F-13

5.1. Baseline................................................................................................................................. F-13

5.1.1. Air Quality and Vessel-Based Emissions............................................................... F-15

5.1.2. AOI Port Activity ................................................................................................... F-15

5.1.3. Nonattainment, Maintenance, and Class I Areas.................................................... F-19

5.2. Impacts.................................................................................................................................. F-19

6. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... F-22

7. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................... F-22

Physical and Environmental Settings F-v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page

Figure F-1. Submarine Physiographic Features in the Area of Interest................................................. F-2

Figure F-2. Bathymetry in the Area of Interest...................................................................................... F-3

Figure F-3. Geologic Time Scale........................................................................................................... F-4

Figure F-4. Major Geologic Basins along the Atlantic Coast................................................................ F-5

Figure F-5. Distribution of Surficial Sediment Types in the Area of Interest ....................................... F-7

Figure F-6. Loop Current (Gulf of Mexico) and Gulf Stream (Atlantic Coast) Locations Based 

on Trajectories of Near-surface Drifting Buoys from 1978-2003....................................... F-8

Figure F-7. Locations of Mandatory Class I Areas in the U.S............................................................. F-20

Physical and Environmental Settings F-vii

LIST OF TABLES 

Page

Table F-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as of October 2011 ............................ 14

Table F-2. Air Quality Statistics Report for the Five Port Areas of the Area of Interest (AOI) 

for 2012 for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Ozone (O3) ................ 16

Table F-3. Air Quality Statistics Report for the Five Port Areas of the Area of Interest (AOI) 

for 2012 for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5, and PM10) ..................... 16

Table F-4. Air Quality Index (AQI) Annual Summary Information for the Five Port Areas of 

the Area of Interest (AOI) for 2012 showing Number of Days by Air Quality 

Category................................................................................................................................ 17

Table F-5. Air Quality Index (AQI) Annual Summary Information for the Five Port Areas of 

the Area of Interest (AOI) for 2012 showing AQI Statistics and Pollutants......................... 17

Table F-6. Summary of Vessel Activity, by Type, for Ports Adjacent to the Area of Interest 

(AOI) and Vessel Activity within and Adjacent to the AOI................................................. 21

Physical and Environmental Settings F-ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AOI Area of Interest

AQI Air Quality Index

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management

CAA Clean Air Act

CO carbon monoxide

CBSA core based statistical area

ECA Emission Control Area

G&G geological and geophysical

GRT gross registered tons

HRG high-resolution geophysical

IMO International Maritime 

Organization

JAXPORT Port of Jacksonville

MAB Mid-Atlantic Bight

MARPOL International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships

MMS Minerals Management Service

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NDBC National Data Buoy Center

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxide

O3 ozone

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

PM particulate matter

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

SAB South Atlantic Bight

SCPA South Carolina Ports Authority

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxide

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

Physical and Environmental Settings F-1

1. GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY 

This section provides a regional geologic description of the Area of Interest (AOI). Additional 

geological background information is provided in a literature synthesis by White (2013).

1.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION

The AOI encompasses Atlantic waters from the shoreline (excluding estuaries) to 350 nmi (648 km)

offshore and from the mouth of Delaware Bay (38°51' N) to Cape Canaveral, Florida (28°N). The region

has a mix of depositional and erosional environments and is greatly influenced by a prominent ocean

current system, the Gulf Stream. Physiographically, the AOI includes the southern portion of the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) from the mouth of Delaware Bay south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, plus 

all of the South Atlantic Bight (SAB) extending from Cape Hatteras to just south of Cape Canaveral, 

Florida (Figure F-1). The MAB and SAB differ physiographically; the MAB has a classic continental 

shelf-slope-rise sequence, while the SAB has a terrace-like sequence with several prominent features as 

discussed below and shown in Figure F-1. 

The MAB has a broad continental shelf, with the 100-m (330-ft) water-depth contour generally 

coinciding with the shelf break. Offshore Norfolk, Virginia, the continental shelf is approximately 

55-125 km (30-68 nmi) wide, with the change from gradual to steep topographic relief at the shelf break 

generally occurring at depths of 40-160 m (130-525 ft) (Tucholke, 1987). Bathymetry in the AOI is 

shown in Figure F-2. The continental slope, which has an average gradient between 4o and 11o, begins 

seaward of the shelf break (Heezen et al., 1959). The continental rise begins at a depth of approximately 

2,000 m (6,560 ft). The MAB shelf is incised with deep canyons and valleys. Some canyons were eroded 

by rivers during lower stands of sea level, but most were formed via other erosional processes, such as 

slides, debris flows, and turbidity currents (Uchupi, 1968; Malahoff et al., 1980; Tucholke, 1987). There 

are three major canyons in the AOI (Baltimore, Washington, and Norfolk) and several minor canyons 

(Warr, Accomac, Hull, Keller, Hatteras, and Pamlico) (Figure F-1). 

The seafloor in the SAB is divided into two distinct bathymetric areas: the Florida-Hatteras Shelf and 

the Blake Plateau (Figure F-1), which are connected by the gently dipping Florida-Hatteras Slope

(Popenoe, 1981; Shor and McClennen, 1988). The Florida-Hatteras Shelf is a shallow, extremely flat 

inner shelf with water depths less than 100 m (330 ft) and a gradient less than 1:1,000 (Heezen et al., 

1959; Shepard, 1973). Off Cape Hatteras, the shelf is narrow (~45 km [~24 nmi]), then broadens to over 

105 km (57 nmi) offshore Cape Fear (Figure F-1) (Newton et al., 1971). Off the Georgia coast, the 

Florida-Hatteras Shelf extends nearly 150 km (81 nmi) at its greatest width before narrowing again to less 

than 60 km (32 nmi) off Cape Canaveral (Figure F-1). The shelf break generally occurs in water depths 

of approximately 40-80 m (130-260 ft) offshore northeastern Florida (Macintyre and Milliman, 1970).

From the edge of the shallow shelf, the Florida-Hatteras Slope gently transitions down about 60 m 

(200 ft) onto the Blake Plateau, a broad, flat sedimentary basin. The slope is smooth and uniform with a 

seaward slope of approximately 1o (Tucholke, 1987). Shelf-edge ridges, or reefs, occur near the top of the 

slope, and the upper slope is smooth and largely devoid of submarine canyons. Blake Plateau is an 

intermediate depth outer shelf where water depths range from approximately 700-1,100 m 

(2,300-3,600 ft). There are numerous terrace-like features and elongated depressions (some with 

deepwater coral mounds) along the base of the Florida-Hatteras Slope, although the Blake Plateau

generally has a smooth surface (Stetson et al., 1962, 1969; Milliman et al., 1967). The western and 

northern portions of the Plateau have a series of deep elongated and flat-bottomed erosional depressions 

caused by scouring by the Gulf Stream and other currents. The Florida-Hatteras Slope and the terraces 

and depressions on the Blake Plateau are attributed to Gulf Stream erosion (Tucholke, 1987).

The Charleston Bump, located offshore Charleston, South Carolina (Figure F-1) and identified by the 

recurving 500-600 m (1,640-1,969 ft) isobaths (Bane and Brooks, 1979), is a distinctive feature of the 

SAB. It presents prominent bottom relief on a flat seafloor located in water depths of 400-700 m 

(1,312-2,297 ft), causing an offshore deflection of the Gulf Stream’s path and producing meanders, 

eddies, and upwelling over the continental shelf in this area (Bane, 1983; Sedberry et al., 2001). 
F-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure F-1. Submarine Physiographic Features in the Area of Interest.
Physical and Environmental Settings F-3

Figure F-2. Bathymetry in the Area of Interest.
F-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

1.2. GEOLOGIC HISTORY AND SEDIMENTARY BASINS

The Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America are situated along a passive continental margin 

formed by the break up and pull-apart of the supercontinent Pangea during the Triassic-Jurassic periods 

during formation of the incipient Atlantic basin (Figure F-3). Continental rifting was accompanied by 

the deposition of red beds and volcanic rocks during the Triassic period followed by marine incursions 

into rift basins during the middle and late Jurassic period when deposition of evaporites took place along 

the Atlantic margin from Newfoundland to the SAB (Figure F-4). 

A passive continental margin is one where the continent and adjacent ocean floor are on the same

tectonic plate. Passive continental margins are characterized by subsidence, erosion, and thick sediment 

accumulations leading to the development of the characteristic continental margin sequence: continental 

shelf, continental slope, and continental rise (Kennett, 1982). This type of margin experiences little, if 

any, volcanic or earthquake activity after initial formation of the basin. Because these margins are found 

along the east coasts of North and South America and the west coasts of Europe and Africa, they are also 

known as “Atlantic-type” margins.

Figure F-3. Geologic Time Scale (from Guccione and Zachary, 2000). 
Physical and Environmental Settings F-5

Figure F-4. Major Geologic Basins along the Atlantic Coast.
F-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Sedimentary basins are areas of the Earth’s crust with a history of subsidence and within which 

sediments accumulate forming stratigraphic successions. The stratigraphy of each basin is controlled 

primarily by large-scale events, such as tectonic activity, climate changes, and eustatic sea-level change. 

The mechanisms that produce sedimentary basins are lithospheric stretching, flexuring of the 

oceanic-continental lithosphere, and strike-slip faulting. Sedimentary basins develop within plates 

(intraplate basins) or at their edges (interplate basins). Intraplate basins can develop on both continental 

and oceanic crust; interplate basins can form at passive margins where new oceanic crust is being created, 

as well as destructive and conservative margins.

Figure F-4 illustrates major geologic basins along the Atlantic coast that are defined by seismic 

surveys. Underlying the Blake Plateau are two deep sedimentary basins with sediment accumulations up

to 13 km (8 mi) thick that have no surface physiographic expression: the Carolina Trough and the Blake 

Plateau Basin (Figure F-4). The Carolina Trough exhibits salt diapirism and is located below the 

continental slope and upper rise off North and South Carolina. The Blake Plateau Basin is located below 

the southern portion of Blake Plateau to the east of Georgia and northern Florida. The Southeast Georgia 

Embayment is a deep sedimentary basin located beneath the Blake Plateau where sediment thickness can 

be as much as 3.4 km (2.1 mi); it also has no surface physiographic expression.

1.3. SEDIMENTS

Unconsolidated sediment, primarily sand, silt, clay, and some gravel, covers much of the continental 

shelf and slope of both the MAB and SAB (Figure F-5). The MAB shelf is overlain by a mantle of sand 

approximately 20 m (65 ft) thick, with some areas characterized by linear sand ridges and swales. Rivers 

draining into the MAB carry little sediment offshore because of sediment being trapped in estuaries or 

coastal marshes, resulting in coarse sediments on the shelf (Milliman and Meade, 1983). Tucholke (1987)

attributes the coarse sediments on the shelf to the winnowing out of fine-grained materials and their 

transport either shoreward into estuaries or off the shelf via submarine canyons onto the continental slope. 

On the Mid-Atlantic continental slope, sediments tend to be silt and clay mixtures with interspersed, 

localized sandy areas (Milliman et al., 1972; Ray et al., 1980). Slope sediments are highly variable, 

consisting mainly of sandy silts on the upper slope and silts and clays on the lower slope 

(McGregor, 1983). Fine-grained biogenic calcareous sediments predominate seaward of the 3,000-m 

(9,843-ft) isobath (Amato, 1994).

Late Jurassic (approximately 190 million years ago) carbonate sediments and reefs of the Florida 

Platform form the shelf off the northern Florida coast and the Carolina Platform off the North Carolina 

coast (Figure F-5). Terrigenous clastic sediments of Tertiary age prograded across the Florida-Hatteras

Shelf (Figure F-4) to form a thick sedimentary wedge over these platforms that are truncated by the Gulf 

Stream, which scours the inner part of the Blake Plateau nearly clean of sediments. The distribution of 

continental shelf and slope bottom sediments in the SAB are much more complex than those found in 

other areas (Amato, 1994). A thick layer of phosphoritic sediment, whose thickness varies widely, is 

covered by a thin layer of carbonate sand over much of the Blake Plateau. The thin layer of sand, 

generally less than 5 m (15 ft) thick, covers most of the shelf surface. Hard substrate, such as cemented 

sand, that can range from smooth outcrops to rough bottoms with relief up to 15 m (50 ft) occurs in places 

where the sand cover is absent. Accumulation of sediment on the Blake Plateau has not kept pace with 

the rate of subsidence because the Plateau lies beneath and east of the Gulf Stream along the east side on 

the inner shelf, so deposition of coastal sediments is precluded (Amato, 1994).

Sand and gravel layers in the SAB are much thinner than those found north of Cape Hatteras, and 

rock outcrops are common. The northern areas are characterized by quartz sands while the southern areas 

of the SAB have higher carbonate content. Continental shelf sands are remnants of delta and riverine 

sediments. Sediments on the outer shelf of the SAB tend to be medium to coarse-grained sand (Pilkey 

et al., 1979). Sediments on the continental slope are primarily composed of silt and clay (Tucholke, 

1987).
Physical and Environmental Settings F-7

Figure F-5. Distribution of Surficial Sediment Types in the Area of Interest (Adapted from: Poppe et al., 2005).
F-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 

This section provides a regional description of the physical oceanography in the AOI. Additional 

background information is provided in a literature synthesis by Voulgaris (2013). 

The major currents along the Atlantic coast are the Gulf Stream system flowing northward and the 

Labrador Current flowing southward. The Gulf Stream is the western boundary current of the North 

Atlantic Subtropical Gyre that strongly influences the physical oceanography of the MAB and SAB 

(Pickard and Emery, 1990; Verity et al., 1993). Offshore southeastern Florida, the Gulf Stream begins in 

the Florida Straits as the Florida Current, a continuation of the Loop Current from the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Florida Current is that section of the Gulf Stream that stretches from the Florida Straits north to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina. A composite of the Loop Current, Florida Current, and Gulf Stream positions 

from satellite imagery is shown in Figure F-6. 

Figure F-6. Loop Current (Gulf of Mexico) and Gulf Stream (Atlantic Coast) Locations Based on Trajectories of 

Near-Surface Drifting Buoys from 1978-2003 (From: Cooperative Institute for Marine and 

Atmospheric Studies, 2008).

The Gulf Stream is a powerful, warm, and swiftly flowing current that flows northward, generally 

along the shelf edge, carrying warm equatorial waters into the cooler North Atlantic (Pickard and Emery, 

1990; Verity et al., 1993). It generally follows the shelf edge up the southeast coast until it reaches 

Cape Hatteras, where it begins its northeastward flow across the Atlantic Ocean toward Europe (Pickard 

and Emery, 1990). The Antilles Current, which originates from the North Equatorial Current and flows 
Physical and Environmental Settings F-9

northwestward along the eastern edge of the Bahamas, contributes to the Gulf Stream when it joins the 

Florida Current off the east coast of Florida.

About 30 million m3

/s (1,060 million ft3/s) of water is transported through the Florida Straits by the 

Florida Current; transport volume increases progressively to the northeast to about 85 million m3

/s 

(3,000 million ft3

/s) near Cape Hatteras (Pickard and Emery 1990). Surface current speed is high, at 

times exceeding 2.5 m/s (8.2 ft/s) with a mean surface velocity of about 1.8 m/s (5.9 ft/s) (Von Arx et al., 

1974; Tomczak and Godfrey, 2003). Current flow in the Florida Straits is greatest within about 200 m 

(656 ft) of the surface, with velocity decreasing with depth. Current speed is about 10 cm/s (0.3 ft/s) at 

depths greater than about 1,000 m (3,280 ft) (Tomczak and Godfrey, 2003). The Gulf Stream is typically 

80-150 km (50-93 mi) wide and 800-1,200 m (2,600-4,000 ft) deep and has a slightly lower flow rate 

after passing Cape Hatteras (80 million m3

/s [2.8 billion ft3/s]) where the velocity of the current also is 

fastest near the surface with a maximum speed of about 2.5 m/s (8 ft/s) (Pickard and Emery, 1990; 

Tomczak and Godfrey, 2003). 

In addition to the Gulf Stream, features such as rings, meanders, and filaments can form and affect 

shelf waters in the SAB (Science Applications International Corporation, 1984; Florida Institute of 

Oceanography, 1986). South of Cape Hatteras, meanders diverging from the Gulf Stream typically form 

frontal eddies that remain attached to the Gulf Stream. North of Cape Hatteras, meanders pinch off to 

form small gyre features that become separated from the Gulf Stream as either warm or cold core rings 

(Mann and Lazier, 1996). 

Off northeastern Florida, the Gulf Stream flows consistently northward. Although its position 

remains fairly stable off northeastern Florida, lateral meandering does occur (Bane et al., 1981; Lee et al., 

1981; U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 1995). Frontal eddies, filaments, and warm and cold core rings may form 

during development of a meander and move across the shelf. Over the SAB shelf, there is a broad, slow, 

northerly flow with frequent intrusions of the Gulf Stream. Currents and water masses on the SAB shelf 

are mainly influenced by the Gulf Stream’s deflections, meanders, and flow with mean current speeds on 

the shelf ranging from 1.8 m/sec (3.5 knots [kn]) near the surface to 0.40 m/sec (0.8 kn) near the bottom 

(Lee and Waddell, 1983). Surface velocities within the Gulf Stream offshore northeastern Florida are 

higher, ranging from 1.03 to 2.57 m/sec (2 to 5 kn) (Mann and Lazier, 1996) with a difference in current 

speeds reported for December (0.30 m/sec [0.6 kn]) and July (0.50 m/sec [1 kn]) (U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 

1986). 

Anticyclonic meanders that pinch off from the Gulf Stream form a separated deep pool of warm 

Sargasso Sea water rotating clockwise known as warm core rings (Brooks, 1996). Warm core rings span 

100 km (~54 nmi) in diameter (García-Moliner and Yoder, 1994) with vertical dimensions of about 1 km 

(0.6 nmi) and may persist for several weeks to more than a year, drift in a south-to-southwesterly 

direction, and either dissipate or merge with the Gulf Stream (Pickard and Emery, 1990; García-Moliner 

and Yoder, 1994; Mann and Lazier, 1996); on average, 22 warm-core rings are formed per year, each 

measuring approximately 100 km (54 nmi) in diameter and 1,000 m (3,280 ft) in the vertical dimension 

(Gyory et al., 2005). When a cyclonic meander pinches off the Gulf Stream, cold core rings form, a 

counterclockwise rotating ring of cool continental slope water surrounded by the warmer waters of the 

Sargasso Sea (Pickard and Emery, 1990). Cold core rings form twice as frequently as warm core rings. 

On average, 35 cold-core rings are shed by the Gulf Stream per year (Gyory et al., 2005). Cold core rings 

are larger (100-300 km [54-162 nmi] in diameter) and last longer, persisting from months to years. Cold 

core rings form to the south of the Gulf Stream, drift in a south-to-southwest direction, and eventually 

dissipate or merge with the Gulf Stream in a similar fashion to their warm core ring counterparts (Pickard 

and Emery, 1990). Frontal eddies are distinct features from the larger cold and warm core rings that 

pinch off the Gulf Stream after it is deflected from the U.S. coastline. Frontal eddies often take the form 

of finger-like extensions and protrude onto the shelf, folding back to enclose a cold, nutrient-rich core of 

water upwelled from deep within the Gulf Stream (Mann and Lazier, 1996). The transient upwelling 

associated with frontal eddies results in more localized areas of high surface primary productivity. The 

formation of warm and cold core rings does not appear to be correlated with seasonality, but rather 

appears to be driven by localized flow dynamics of the Gulf Stream.

Upwelling along the Atlantic coast is both wind-driven and a result of dynamic uplift (Shen et al., 

2000; Lentz et al., 2003). Upwelling can occur along the area of the MAB from New Jersey to Virginia 

during summer months when southwesterly winds prevail (Cook, 1988). In some areas of the upper 
F-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

MAB, upwelling occurs in stratified waters (spring and summer) after the passing of storms 

(Cook, 1988).

In addition to the Gulf Stream, currents originating from the outflow of both Chesapeake and 

Delaware Bays influence the surface circulation in the MAB. The Chesapeake Bay plume flows seaward 

from the mouth of the Bay and then turns south to form a coastal jet that can extend as far as 

Cape Hatteras. Similarly, the Delaware Coastal Current begins in Delaware Bay and flows southward 

along the Delmarva Peninsula before being entrained into the Chesapeake Bay plume.

3. WATER QUALITY

This section provides a regional description of water quality in the AOI. Additional information on 

chemical oceanography and water quality is provided in a literature synthesis by Windom (2013). 

Water quality is typically gauged by measuring a series of parameters such as dissolved oxygen, 

transparency (i.e., water clarity, turbidity, or suspended matter), chlorophyll content, nutrient 

concentrations, and contaminant concentrations (heavy metals and hydrocarbons). Offshore water quality 

in the AOI is expected to be generally good to excellent, with minimal water column stratification. 

Additionally, observations of high water clarity, dissolved oxygen concentrations at or near saturation, 

and low concentrations of suspended matter and trace metal and hydrocarbon contaminants indicate good 

water quality (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 1998). Concentrations of suspended 

matter (turbidity) are typically low in Mid-Atlantic marine waters, generally <1 mg/L (Louis Berger 

Group, Inc., 1999). Suspended matter and turbidity vary locally between surface and bottom waters, vary 

seasonally (because of rainfall and riverine discharge), are located in different areas because of differing 

sources and grain sizes, and increase naturally during storm events. Turbidity may be temporarily

affected by dredging activities; in offshore waters, this would be limited primarily to disposal at approved 

offshore disposal sites. These sites are located, designed, and operated under permit guidelines of the 

Clean Water Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act to ensure any changes in 

turbidity would be localized and short-term (USEPA, 2011a). 

The overall condition of the Nation’s coastal waters is rated as fair. This assessment is based on an 

evaluation of five indices: water quality, sediment, benthic, coastal habitat, and fish tissue contaminants. 

The southeast coast is rated as fair with an index score of 3.6, and the northeast coast is rated fair to poor 

with a score of 2.6 (based on a scale from 1 to 5). A good rating for the benthic and fish tissue 

contaminant indices, a fair rating for the coastal habitat and water quality indices, and fair to poor rating 

for sediment quality comprise the index score of 3.6 for the southeast coast. The water quality index 

includes measurements of five component indicators: dissolved inorganic nitrogen, dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus, chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen. The southeast coast had the highest 

proportion of coastal area in the U.S. rated poor for water quality (13%), the highest proportion of coastal 

area with poor water clarity (26%), and low dissolved oxygen (11%). However, 82 percent of the 

southeast coastal waters had a good rating for the benthic index, which is based on benthic community 

condition. The northeast coast score of 2.6 comprised a good to fair rating for the coast habitat index, a 

fair rating for water quality and sediment quality indices, a poor to fair rating for fish tissue contaminant 

index, and a poor rating for the benthic index. The northeast coast had the greatest proportion of coastal 

area in poor benthic condition (31%) (USEPA, 2012a). 

Some areas of the Atlantic have heavy shipping traffic and may experience localized impacts from 

ships, especially from bilge water, domestic wastewater, and tank washings. Ship discharges are 

regulated under USEPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System vessels program. The

primary means of regulation is the Vessel General Permit, which applies to discharges incidental to the 

normal operation of all non-recreational, non-military vessels of 24 m (79 ft) or greater in length that 

discharge in U.S. waters (USEPA, 2011b). 

Pelagic tar is probably the most common form of hydrocarbon contamination present in the offshore 

environment (Farrington, 1987). Higher tar concentrations tend to be associated with the Loop Current 

and the Gulf Stream, and only trace concentrations are found over the continental shelf. Van Vleet (1984) 

indicated that tanker operations may be the major source of pelagic tar. 

Hydrocarbons and metals concentrations in MAB and SAB sediments vary with sediment texture but, 

with the exception of disposal sites (identified in Chapter 4.2.12.1.5), are not indicative of significant 

contamination (Lee, 1979; Smith et al., 1979; Windom and Betzer, 1979). Metals and hydrocarbons 
Physical and Environmental Settings F-11

concentrations on the continental slope tend to be higher than on the shelf because of the greater 

proportions of silt and clay in slope sediments. Trace metals include elements that are generally present 

in minute amounts in the sediment. With the exception of dump sites, trace metal concentrations 

nearshore and offshore rarely approach toxicity limits defined by the USEPA. To assist in understanding 

applicable limits, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recently upgraded 

its Screening Quick Reference Tables to include an expanded list of analytes for which benchmarks are 

presented (U.S. Dept. of Commerce [USDOC], NOAA, 2011). Elevated lead concentrations in sediments 

have been detected in the South Atlantic, decreasing with depth in the sediment column within both the 

South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic, suggesting an anthropogenic source (U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

[USDOI], Minerals Management Service [MMS], 1992). On the Mid-Atlantic slope and rise, 

hydrocarbons found in sediment samples were either mainly biogenic in origin or were contaminants 

derived from the burning of fossil fuels. Biogenic gas is found in all marine sediments, but no evidence 

of petroleum contamination was reported in sediments from the South Atlantic slope and rise 

(USDOI, MMS, 1992). The first deepwater gas seeps were recently found at water depths greater than 

1,000 m (3,300 ft) off the U.S. Atlantic Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Based on preliminary information, 

it is believed that the seeps are likely emitting methane gas. If these seeps are emitting methane, this 

could lead to changes in ocean chemistry, e.g., ocean acidification, since methane released into the water 

column is often oxidized to carbon dioxide (USDOC, NOAA, 2012c).

In coastal waters, water quality is controlled primarily by the anthropogenic inputs of land runoff, 

land point source discharges, and atmospheric deposition. With increasing distance from shore, oceanic 

circulation patterns play an increasingly larger role in dispersing and diluting anthropogenic contaminants 

and determining water quality. Due primarily to the influence of tidal plumes leaving estuaries, areas of 

the Atlantic closer to shore will show major local variations (USDOI, MMS, 1992). Most threats to 

marine water quality originate on land. Along the coastline, water quality is influenced by cities and 

other large nearby populations with associated non-point pollution sources: urban runoff containing oil, 

greases, and nutrients; domestic and sanitary wastes; and large expanses of agricultural land where 

fertilizers and biocides are applied. In less populated areas, networks of wetlands, estuaries, and bays can 

be subject to effluents from numerous septic systems. Plumes from the two prominent estuaries in the

MAB, Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, affect coastal water quality. The area’s extensive watersheds 

funnel nutrients, sediment, and organic material into secluded, poorly flushed estuaries that are much 

more susceptible to eutrophication, the pattern of which also closely reflects the distribution of population 

density (USEPA, 2008). Hypoxic environments, i.e., those with low dissolved oxygen concentrations, 

usually of 3 mg/L or less, occur when the water column becomes vertically stratified and mixing between 

oxygenated surface waters and bottom waters cannot occur. Such conditions often follow periods of 

eutrophication and intense bacterial or secondary production. Hypoxia is not a widespread phenomenon in 

the AOI. However, it does occur, most notably during summer thermal stratification affecting the deeper 

waters of Chesapeake Bay (Hagy et al., 2004). 

Between 1980 and 2003, coastal counties of the southeast coast region showed the largest rate of 

population increase (58%) of any coastal region in the conterminous U.S. In 2003, the coastal population 

of the northeast coast region was the largest in the country, with 52.6 million people, representing 34

percent of the Nation’s total coastal population. Although coastal counties along the northeast coast 

showed the slowest rate of population increase between 1980 and 2003, the region gained the secondlargest number of people (almost 8 million) of all U.S. regions during this period (USEPA, 2008). 

There is also documented evidence of a “garbage patch” in the North Atlantic within the AOI. The 

highest concentrations of plastics in this “garbage patch” were found between the approximate latitudes of 

Virginia to Cuba (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/atlantic-plastic/). 

4. METEOROLOGY

Oceanographic and atmospheric phenomena combine to create the long-term climate and short-term 

weather patterns that characterize the AOI. The regional climate is influenced by several factors, 

including oscillating atmospheric pressure systems, prevailing winds, and warm Gulf Stream waters. 

Three atmospheric pressure systems govern the wind patterns and climate in this region: the Icelandic 

Low, the Bermuda-Azores High, and the Ohio Valley High (Blanton et al., 1985). The Bermuda-Azores 

High is a semi-permanent, high-pressure system centered over the island of Bermuda in summer and fall 
F-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

and over the Azores in the eastern North Atlantic in winter and spring. The anticyclonic (clockwise) 

circulation associated with the Bermuda-Azores High dominates the climate from approximately May 

through August, producing southeasterly winds (<6 m/s [<20 ft/s]) and hot, humid weather over much of 

the southeastern U.S. In winter (approximately November through March), the Icelandic Low and weak 

Ohio Valley High combine to generate west-northwesterly winds (8-10 m/s [26-33 ft/s]) and drier weather 

conditions in the region (Adams et al., 1993). Wind velocities offshore of Cape Canaveral exhibited 

similar trends, but with slightly lower average speeds at 4.6 m/s (15.1 ft/s) in summer and 6.7 m/s (22 ft/s) 

in winter (USDOC, NOAA, National Data Buoy Center [NDBC], 2011a). Weather systems pass rapidly 

through the southeastern U.S. (approximately every 2-5 days) throughout the year, and their effects are 

superimposed on the seasonal cycling of the Bermuda-Azores High (Joyce, 1987). While there is a large 

range of changes in air temperature, wind, and barometric pressure between seasons, fluctuations 

associated with the passage of weather systems may exceed seasonal changes.

A long-term record of atmospheric and oceanographic conditions is available from oceanographic 

buoys maintained by the USDOC, NOAA, NDBC (2011b). Air temperature measured over a 17-year 

period at an oceanographic buoy 48 km (26 nmi) southeast of Cape May, New Jersey, averaged 23.3°C 

(73.9°F) in August and 3.6°C (38.5°F) in February, the warmest and coldest months, respectively 

(USDOC, NOAA, NDBC, 2011c). In contrast, a buoy located 278 km (150 nmi) east of Cape Hatteras 

recorded mean monthly air temperatures of 26.1 °C (79.0°F) in August and 14.9°C (58.8°F) in January 

over a concurrent 25-year period (USDOC, NOAA, NDBC, 2011d), illustrating the warming influence of 

the Gulf Stream.

Prevailing westerly winds result in a tropical/subtropical climate south of Cape Hatteras 

(Joyce, 1987). Air temperature measured in southeast Onslow Bay averages 26°C (78.8°F) in summer 

(June through August) and 13°C (55.4°F) in winter (December through February), with annual extremes 

of 31°C (87.8°F) and -12°C (10.4°F) (Coastal Ocean Research and Monitoring Program, 2011). By 

contrast, air temperatures recorded from a NOAA oceanographic buoy located approximately 37 km

(20 nmi) off Cape Canaveral averaged 27.1°C (80.8°F) in summer and 19.8°C (67.6°F) in winter between 

1988 and 2001 (USDOC, NOAA, NDBC, 2011a). Warmer average temperatures and temperature 

extremes of 31.8°C (89.2°F) and 0°C (32.0°F) are almost certainly a result of the moderating influence of 

the warm Gulf Stream waters.

Over the past 50 years, total annual precipitation has averaged about 115 cm (45 in) in Lewes, 

Delaware and 145 cm (57 in) at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Southeast Regional Climate Center, 

2011a,b). Precipitation in the form of snow or freezing rain occurs more frequently in the north. Average 

annual precipitation ranges between 109 and 142 cm (43 and 56 in) along the coastlines of the Carolinas, 

Georgia, and northern Florida (Boyles et al., 2004). Maximum rainfall occurs in late summer; however, 

maximum discharge of freshwater from local rivers into the SAB occurs in March or April as water drains 

from inland mountain and piedmont areas, which receive their maximum rainfall in the early spring 

(Blanton et al., 1985). 

The proximity of the Gulf Stream to the southeast U.S. coast has a strong effect in the generation of 

cyclonic, extra-tropical storms in winter as cold, dry continental air meets the warm, moist air over Gulf 

Stream waters (Adams et al., 1993). Thunderstorms and major storm systems occur in the region most 

often during summer and fall as hot, humid air masses collide with passing fronts (Joyce, 1987).

Tropical and extra-tropical cyclones (northeasters) are significant influences on weather and sea state

conditions in the AOI. Tropical cyclones, which occur during summer and fall, are severe but infrequent. 

Extra-tropical cyclones occur frequently during winter and may produce unfavorable conditions during 

winter and spring. Tropical and extra-tropical cyclones have the potential for high wind speeds, heavy 

rain (or snow in winter), flooding, tornadoes, and significant storm surges depending on the severity of 

the storm. Most major storms, including hurricanes, occur during the North Atlantic hurricane season, 

which occurs from June through November. Tropical cyclones form in warm, equatorial waters of the 

North Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea and often move northward along the southeastern U.S. coast 

following the path of the Gulf Stream (Adams et al., 1993; Buchan, 2000). Since 1944, when reliable 

data on storm systems began being recorded, 761 named storms have occurred over the North Atlantic; 

182 of these storms were major hurricanes (USDOC, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center [NCDC], 

2013a). From 1950 through 2011, 29 hurricanes made first landfall between Cape Canaveral, Florida and 

Cape Hatteras, with just two hurricanes striking the coast between Cape Hatteras and Long Island, New 

York (USDOC, NOAA, NCDC, 2013b). Recent statistics for the 2012 season revealed 19 named storms 
Physical and Environmental Settings F-13

in the Atlantic Basin, of which 10 were hurricanes and 1 was classified as a major hurricane (Hurricane 

Michael; Category 3) (USDOC, NOAA, NCDC, 2013c). 

The 2012 season also included one post-tropical storm with hurricane force winds (Sandy). Sandy

began in the southern Caribbean Sea and quickly developed first into a tropical storm, then into a 

hurricane that was downgraded to Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy, meaning it still had hurricane-force 

winds but lost the characteristics of a tropical storm, prior to making landfall about 8 km (5 mi) southwest 

of Atlantic City, New Jersey, on October 29, 2012 (USDOC, NOAA, 2012b). The winds at landfall were 

estimated to be 80 kn, with a minimum pressure of 946 millibars. Hurricane-force winds gusts were 

reported across Long Island and the New York metropolitan area. In addition, there was a significant 

storm surge that occurred along the Mid-Atlantic and southern New England coast (USDOC, NOAA, 

2012a). This storm caused significant damage to the coastal areas and infrastructure at the landfall 

location (Atlantic City, New Jersey) and the surrounding areas, which are north of the AOI. Within the 

AOI, a long portion of the Mid-Atlantic coastline experienced strong waves and storm surge. Barrier 

islands were breached in a number of places, and erosion of the beach and dunes occurred all along the 

Mid-Atlantic coast (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012).

5. AIR QUALITY

Air quality typically is defined by the concentration of criteria pollutants established by the USEPA 

under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—a listing that identifies those pollutants 

considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes two 

types of national air quality standards: (1) primary standards, which set limits to protect public health, 

including the health of "sensitive" populations (e.g., asthmatics, children, and the elderly); and 

(2) secondary standards, which set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The NAAQS apply to sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, 

particulate matter of less than or equal to 10 and 2.5 μm, respectively), and lead (40 CFR part 50). The 

primary NAAQS are set at levels to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The USEPA 

has designated secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare (USDOI, BOEM, 2012). The NAAQS 

standards are expressed as concentration in air and duration of exposure. Many standards address both 

short- and long-term exposures. Any individual State may adopt a more stringent set of standards. 

Current NAAQS are outlined in Table F-1. Units of measure for the standards are parts per million 

(ppm) by volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m3). 

When the monitored pollutant levels in an area of a state exceed the NAAQS for any pollutant, the area is 

classified as “nonattainment” for that pollutant.

5.1. BASELINE

G&G surveys will occur under three different programs, with air emissions associated with vessel 

activity both offshore and during transit into and out of coastal ports, as required. For the oil and gas 

program, 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 wide azimuth 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. Seismic survey vessels 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.
F-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table F-1 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as of October 2011

Pollutant Primary/

Secondary Averaging Time Level Form Final Rule Cite

Carbon 

monoxide Primary

8-hr 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year 76 FR 54294, Aug. 31, 2011 1-hr 35 ppm

Lead Primary and

Secondary

Rolling 3 month 

average 0.15 μg/m3 (a) Not to be exceeded 73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008

Nitrogen 

dioxide

Primary 1-hr 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 

3 years 75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010; 

Primary and 61 FR 52852, Oct. 8, 1996

Secondary Annual 53 ppb (b) Annual mean

Ozone Primary and 

Secondary 8-hr 0.075 ppm (c)

Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr concentration, 

averaged over 3 years

73 FR 16436, Mar. 27, 2008

Particle 

pollution 

PM2.5

Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 

3 years

Dec. 14, 2012

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 

3 years

Primary and

Secondary 24-hr 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

Particle 

pollution PM10

Primary and

Secondary 24-hr 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year on average over 

3 years

Sulfur dioxide

Primary 1-hr 75 ppb (d) 99th percentile of 1-hr daily maximum concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010; 

38 FR 25678, Sept. 14, 1973

Secondary 3-hr 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year a Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year 

after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 standard 

remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

b The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer 

comparison to the 1-hr standard. c Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr 

concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, USEPA revoked the 1-hr 

ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued 

obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hr ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per 

calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. d Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hr SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking. However, 

these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or 

maintain the 2010 standard are approved.

Vessels conducting G&G surveys or sampling under the renewable energy program would operate 

mainly at specific sites (consisting of one or more Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] blocks) in water depths 

less than 40 m (131 ft) and along potential cable routes to shore. The proposed action scenario includes a 

maximum of 464,250 km of high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys; this is the equivalent to 

approximately 75,000 hr of surveying within the Wind Energy Areas. 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.

For HRG surveys of sand source areas under the marine minerals program, 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. 

Across all geophysical survey activities, the maximum activity level is estimated at 12,100 km; this is the 
Physical and Environmental Settings F-15

equivalent of approximately 1,450 hr of surveying across 180 8-hr operational survey days. The scenario 

would require 180 vessel round trips. 

Five ports have been 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. 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 vessels. However, there are many smaller ports that 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.

5.1.1. Air Quality and Vessel-Based Emissions

Air quality information for the five primary port locations is provided in Tables F-2 through F-5. Air 

quality in the five primary port location areas is generally good (Air Quality Index [AQI] value of 50 or 

less). Based on 2012 air quality data, unhealthy air quality conditions for sensitive groups (AQI value 

between 101 and 150) at each locale ranged between 1 and 8 days; single unhealthy days (AQI values 

151-200) were noted only for Norfolk and Jacksonville during 2012.

Criteria pollutants of concern in these areas include SO2 and PM. NOx, SOx, and direct particulate 

matter are the primary pollutants of concern emitted from ships. These pollutants and the pollutants that 

are secondarily formed from these emissions can have atmospheric lifetimes of 5-10 days before being 

significantly dispersed, deposited, or converted to other species (USEPA, 2009).

On March 26, 2010, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) amended the International 

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) designating specific portions of U.S., 

Canadian, and French waters, including the AOI, as an Emission Control Area (ECA). In October 2008, 

the member states of IMO agreed to amend MARPOL Annex VI, adopting new tiers of NOx and fuel 

sulfur controls. Ships are significant contributors to the U.S. and Canadian mobile-source emission 

inventories, though most are flagged or registered elsewhere. Ships complying with ECA standards will 

reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

(USEPA, 2009, 2010).

5.1.2. AOI Port Activity

Most of the harbors and associated coastal areas in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

and northeastern Florida are heavily developed metropolitan and industrial areas and have historically 

been, and continue to be host to very large volumes of rail, road, vessel, and air traffic, all of which emit 

air pollutants (USDOI, BOEM, 2012).

5.1.2.1. Port of Virginia

There were 35,360 vessel trips to and from ports in Virginia in 2009 (approximately 17,680 round

trips) (USACE, 2009). The Port of Virginia ranks ninth among all U.S. ports handling over 

15,900,000 tons of cargo in 2005. In recent years, regulatory officials have increased their focus on air 

emissions generated from U.S. port operations. Diesel exhaust generated from cargo handling equipment 

is responsible for approximately 25 percent of emissions from port facilities. In 1999, the Port of Virginia 

voluntarily implemented emissions reduction program through a series of revisions to its equipment 

purchasing policies. The Port specifies to its suppliers that all new cargo handling equipment contain the 

lowest emission engine available on the market. From 1999 to 2005, air emissions from cargo handling 

activities at the Port of Virginia decreased by 30 percent despite a 55 percent increase in cargo volume. 

For 2005-2015, emissions are expected to decline by an additional 38 percent with a 49 percent projected 

increase in cargo volume (Port of Virginia, 2013).
F-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table F-2 

Air Quality Statistics Report for the Five Port Areas of the Area of Interest (AOI) for 2012 

for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Ozone (O3) 

(Values shown are the highest reported during the year by all monitoring sites in the county or Core Based Statistical Area [CBSA] [from USEPA, 2013a].) 

CBSA CO 1-hr 2nd Max CO 8-hr 2nd Max NO2 98th Percentile O3 1-hr 2nd Max O3 8-hr 4th Max

Norfolk, VA 1.5 1 41 0.1 0.074

Wilmington, NC - - - 0.09 0.064

Charleston, SC - - 35 0.08 0.064

Savannah, GA - - - 0.08 0.063

Jacksonville, FL 3.8 1.6 37 0.08 0.061

Notes: Norfolk, VA = Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC CSBA; Charleston, SC = Charleston-North Charleston, SC CSBA. 

Determinations: CO 1-hr 2nd Max = the second highest 1-hr measurement in the year for CO; CO 8-hr 2nd Max = the second highest non-overlapping 8-hr 

average in the year for CO; NO2 98th Percentile = the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hr measurements in the year for NO2; O3 1-hr 2nd Max = the 

second highest daily maximum 1-hr measurement in the year for O3; O3 8-hr 4th Max = the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr average in the year for O3. 

Table F-3 

Air Quality Statistics Report for the Five Port Areas of the Area of Interest (AOI) for 2012 

for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5, and PM10) 

(Values shown are the highest reported during the year by all monitoring sites in the county or Core Based Statistical Area [CBSA] [from USEPA, 2013a].) 

CBSA SO2 99th Percentile SO2 24-hr 2nd Max PM2.5 98th Percentile PM2.5 Weighted Mean PM10 24-hr 2nd

Norfolk, VA 56 9 23 8.3 32

Wilmington, NC 47 8 16 8.7 -

Charleston, SC 17 5 34 9.6 41

Savannah, GA 78 35 24 10 27

Jacksonville, FL 54 19 22 8 55

Notes: Norfolk, VA = Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC CSBA; Charleston, SC = Charleston-North Charleston, SC CSBA. 

Determinations: SO2 99th Percentile = the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hr measurements in the year for SO2; SO2 24-hr 2nd Max = the second 

highest 24-hr average measurement in the year for SO2; PM2.5 98th Percentile = the 98th percentile of the daily average measurements in the year for PM2.5; 

PM2.5 Weighted Mean = the weighted annual mean (mean weighted by calendar quarter) for the year for PM2.5; PM10 24-hr 2nd Max = the second highest 

24-hr average measurement in the year for PM10. 
Physical and Environmental Settings

F-17

Table F-4 

Air Quality Index (AQI) Annual Summary Information for the Five Port Areas of the Area of Interest (AOI) for 2012 

showing Number of Days by Air Quality Category (The AQI is an indicator of overall air quality [from USEPA, 2013b].) 

CBSA No. Days with AQI No. Good Days No. Moderate Days No. Days USG No. Days Unhealthy No. Days Very 

Unhealthy

Norfolk, VA 366 291 71 3 1 -

Wilmington, NC 366 322 43 1 - -

Charleston, SC 366 239 126 1 - -

Savannah, GA 366 236 122 8 - -

Jacksonville, FL 366 290 71 4 1 -

Notes: Norfolk, VA = Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC CSBA; CSBA; Charleston, SC = Charleston-North Charleston, SC CSBA; 

CSBA = core based statistical area.

Determinations: No. Days with AQI = Number of days in the year having an AQI value; this is the number of days on which measurements from any 

monitoring site in the county or Metropolitan Statistical Area were reported to the air quality standards database; No. Good Days = Number of days in the 

year having an AQI value 0 through 50; No. Moderation Days = Number of days in the year having and AQI value 51 through 100; No. Days USG 

(Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups) = Number of days in the year having an AQI value 101 through 150; No. Days Unhealthy = Number of days in the year 

having an AQI value 151 through 200; No. Days Very Unhealthy = Number of days in the year having an AQI value 201 or higher. This includes the AQI 

categories very unhealthy and hazardous. Very few locations (about 0.3% of counties) have any days in the very unhealthy or hazardous categories.

Table F-5 

Air Quality Index (AQI) Annual Summary Information for the Five Port Areas of the Area of Interest (AOI) for 2012 showing AQI Statistics and Pollutants 

(The AQI is an indicator of overall air quality [from USEPA, 2013b].) 

CBSA AQI Max AQI 98th

Percentile AQI Median No. Days CO

No. Days 

NO2

No. Days O3

No. Days 

SO2

No. Days 

PM2.5

No. Days 

PM10

Norfolk, VA 164 61 41 - 12 144 22 188 -

Wilmington, NC 104 52 34 - - 147 33 186 -

Charleston, SC 134 62 43 - 5 55 - 306 -

Savannah, GA 124 67 43 - - 61 78 227 -

Jacksonville, FL 165 56 39 - 1 163 36 163 3

Notes: Norfolk, VA = Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC CSBA; CSBA; Charleston, SC = Charleston-North Charleston, SC CSBA; 

CSBA = core based statistical area.

Determinations: AQI Max = The highest daily AQI value in the year; AQI 90th Percentile = 90 percent of daily AQI values during the year were less than or 

equal to the 90th percentile value; AQI Median = Half of daily AQI values during the year were less than or equal to the median value, and half equaled or 

exceeded it; No. Days CO, No. Days NO2, No. Days O3, No. Days SO2, No. Days PM2.5, No. Days PM10 = A daily index value is calculated for each air 

pollutant measured. The highest of those index values is the AQI value, and the pollutant responsible for the highest index value is the "Main Pollutant." 

These columns give the number of days each pollutant measured was the main pollutant. A blank column (“-“) indicates a pollutant not measured in the 

county or CBSA.
F-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

5.1.2.2. Port of Wilmington

The Port of Wilmington is owned and operated by the North Carolina State Ports Authority and offers 

terminal facilities serving container, bulk, and breakbulk operations. The Port of Wilmington handled 

461 commercial vessel and one barge visit in 2012 (Port of Wilmington, 2013). The North Carolina Ports 

Authority adopted ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel as its primary off-road diesel fuel on July 1, 2007, over 

3 years in advance of Federal requirements. Also in 2007, the Authority put into service four new 

environmentally friendly electrified container cranes, and is exploring additional grants that would 

replace other specialized cargo handling diesel equipment with all electric units. In December 2008, as 

part of its commitment to sustainable, environmentally friendly operations at the Ports of Wilmington and 

Morehead City, the Ports Authority offered a free workshop on diesel emissions reduction for truckers. 

The North Carolina State Ports Authority also has been awarded grants to install biodiesel fuel tanks at its 

facilities and to retrofit lighting in its warehouses.

5.1.2.3. Port of Charleston

In 2012, the Port of Charleston ranked as the eighth port in the United States by cargo value, with 

$63 billion in imports and exports traded across the docks. Newer, cleaner engines and cleaner fuels have 

helped reduce total pollutants from port equipment and trucks, according to an air emissions inventory 

report commissioned by the South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA). That inventory, which measured all 

port-related emissions in the tri-county region during 2011, was a follow-up to the port’s baseline study 

that quantified 2005 levels. The 2011 inventory report included analysis of emissions of six criteria 

pollutants from trucks, trains, cargo-handling equipment, ships, and tugs and spanned an approximately 

6,475-square kilometer (2,500-square mile) area.

Key findings of the 2011 inventory report included that total port-related levels of nitrogen oxide 

(NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons were reduced by 29, 51, and 26 percent, respectively 

from 2005 levels.

The region’s air meets or exceeds all State and Federal air quality standards, and port-related 

emissions today are already lower than the report’s findings. Additionally, the U.S. joined other nations 

in adopting new fuel standards for ocean-going vessels. The North American Emissions Control Area 

(ECA), a boundary extending 200 miles off the coast of North America, requires the use of low-sulfur 

content fuel and is providing further reductions to ship emissions than what was measured for 2011 

operations. Although total vessel counts were down in 2011 versus 2005, the 2011 report indicates that 

the average engine size of ships calling Charleston has increased more than 45 percent since 2005, 

reflecting the trend toward larger vessels in global trade.

Using USEPA emissions factors for these larger vessels, the 2011 report concludes that 2013 will see 

approximately 60 percent less PM and SO2 emissions from ships than occurred in 2011. By 2015 and the 

full implementation of ECA, PM and SO2 from all ships will be reduced by more than 80 percent 

compared to 2011. Beginning in 2016, all new ships additionally must meet stringent NOx emissions 

requirements.

The 2011 report projects similar improvement in total port-related air quality in the coming years. 

While the number varies by sector and by pollutant, the 2011 report calculates that by 2015 there will 

have been between an 80 to 90 percent reduction in the amount of criteria pollutants of most concern to 

public health and sensitive populations (PM and SO2). 

The SCPA completed a first-in-the-Southeast air emissions inventory in September 2008, which 

measured port-related air emissions across the Tri-County region in 2005. That emissions inventory 

provided a baseline of emissions sources and information for the evaluation of other possible reduction 

strategies.

A subsequent inventory to measure 2017 port-related air emissions will track the effect of the SCPA’s 

truck replacement program that began in late 2011, additional repower projects for cargo-handling 

equipment and full implementation of new Federal fuel standards for ocean-going vessels calling North 

American ports (Port of Charleston, 2013).
Physical and Environmental Settings F-19

5.1.2.4. Port of Savannah

The Port of Savannah, operated by the Georgia Ports Authority, specializes in the handling of 

container, reefer, breakbulk, and RoRo cargoes. Total vessel calls at the Port of Savannah increased 

5 percent from 2,073 in Fiscal Year 2009 to 2,175 in Fiscal Year 13 (Port of Savannah, 2013). 

5.1.2.5. Port of Jacksonville

In 2012, the Port of Jacksonville (JAXPORT) facilities handled 8.2 million tons of cargo, including 

nearly a million cargo containers, based on 2,083 cargo vessel calls. JAXPORT is the leading vehicle 

export port in the U.S and contributes $19 billion in annual economic impact to the region (Port of 

Jacksonville, 2013a).

Recently, JAXPORT became one of the first Florida ports to enter into a grant partnership with the 

State, allowing the port to voluntarily reduce terminal diesel emissions further. The grant, awarded by the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and funded by the USEPA, will pay for the port to 

install diesel oxidation catalysts on JAXPORT cranes and equipment, reducing emissions by 10 tons per 

year (Port of Jacksonville, 2013b).

5.1.3. Nonattainment, Maintenance, and Class I Areas

Outer Continental Shelf waters are not classified as to the presence of criteria pollutants under 

NAAQS and the CAA. Ambient air quality offshore is expected to range from good to excellent because 

of the distance from significant emission sources (e.g., large urban areas or concentrated offshore 

development). Most of the coastal counties adjacent to the AOI have all criteria pollutants present. 

However, Sussex County, Delaware, at the mouth of Delaware Bay is part of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City moderate nonattainment area for 8-hr ozone (USEPA, 2012b). 

The Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News-Hampton Roads area in Virginia is a maintenance area for 

8-hr ozone (USEPA, 2012b). A maintenance area is an area that has been redesignated to attainment for 

the 8-hr ozone standard. There are no other coastal nonattainment or maintenance areas adjacent to the 

AOI (USEPA, 2013c). 

Class I Areas are defined in Sections 101(b)(1), 169A(a)(2), and 301(a) of the CAA, as amended 

(42 USC 7401(b), 7410, 7491(a)(2), and 7601(a)). Class I areas are federally owned lands where very 

little air quality degradation is allowed (USEPA, 2013d). In these areas, air quality-related values 

including visibility are protected. Class I Areas have stringent incremental limits for NO2, SO2, and PM10. 

Three wilderness areas have been identified adjacent to the AOI (Figure F-7): 

• Swanquarter Wilderness Area, North Carolina; 

• Cape Romain FWS Cape Romain Wilderness, South Carolina; and

• Wolf Island FWS Wolf Island Wilderness Area, Georgia.

5.2. IMPACTS

A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur within the AOI during the project period, 

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. 

Six commercial deepwater ports are located along the coast adjacent to the AOI. 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.
F-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure F-7. Locations of Mandatory Class I Areas in the U.S. (from USEPA, 2009).
Physical and Environmental Settings F-21

Shipping and maritime vessel activity in the five 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 U.S Coast Guard 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, 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; similarly, G&G vessel activities do not represent an appreciable source of combustion 

emissions.

Vessel traffic associated with geological and geophysical (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 F-6). 

Table F-6 

Summary of Vessel Activity, by Type, for Ports Adjacent to the Area of Interest (AOI) and Vessel Activity

within and Adjacent to the AOI

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

Commercial Vessels

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

Annual Total Vessel Activity (Port Visits) without G&G 55,403-55,882

Annual Total Vessel Activity (Port Visits) with G&G 56,265-57,565

Annual Increase in Port Visits Attributed to G&G 1.5%-3.0%

G&G = geological and geophysical; HRG = high-resolution geophysical.

G&G survey vessel activity, when considered in the context of other commercial vessel activities and 

U.S. naval exercises, training, and testing operations within the AOI, represent a very small component 

(i.e., 1.5 to 3% of vessel port visits) of overall port traffic. Air emissions from survey vessels will 

contribute minor amounts of pollutants to the emissions inventories for each port. Due to distance 

offshore for most survey operations, impacts to Class I areas are not expected. For these reasons, air 

quality emissions associated with anticipated G&G operations have been screened out of detailed analysis 

for the Atlantic G&G Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 
F-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

6. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

Various activities and processes, both natural and anthropogenic, combine to form the sound profile 

within the ocean, generally referred to as ambient ocean noise (Richardson et al., 1995). Most ambient 

noise is broadband (composed of a spectrum of numerous frequencies without a differentiating pitch) and 

encompasses virtually the entire frequency spectrum. Vessel traffic is a major contributor to ocean noise 

between 5 and 500 Hz (National Research Council, 2003). Spray and bubbles associated with breaking 

waves are the major contributions to ambient noise in the 500-100,000-Hz range. At frequencies greater 

than 100,000 Hz, “thermal noise” caused by the random motion of water molecules is the primary source. 

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 frequencies used by most large whales (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, nearshore 

construction activities, and sonar signals (especially those used by the military). Offshore oil and gas 

operations contribute to the ambient noise in other regions, but are not currently occurring in the AOI.

Long-term data analyzed by McDonald et al. (2006) offshore California show an increase in ambient 

noise of approximately 10-12 dB in the frequency range 30-50 Hz 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. While comparable long-term data for the AOI have not been published, it is assumed 

that underwater noise from vessel traffic and other anthropogenic sources is increasing and will continue 

to increase incrementally over the next decade. 

7. REFERENCES CITED

Adams, C.E., T.J. Berger, W.C. Boicourt, J.C. Churchill, M.D. Earle, P. Hamilton, F.M. Vukovich, 

R.J. Wayland, and R.D. Watts. 1993. A review of the physical oceanography of the Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina region. Volume I: Literature synthesis. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 93-0031. 306 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4820.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Amato, R.V. 1994. Sand and gravel maps of the Atlantic continental shelf with explanatory text. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. OCS Monograph MMS 93-0037.

Bane, J.M., Jr. 1983. Initial observations of the subsurface structure and short-term variability of the 

seaward deflection of the Gulf Stream off Charleston, South Carolina. Journal of Geophysical 

Research 88 C(8):4673-4684.

Bane, J.M., Jr. and D.A. Brooks. 1979. Gulf Stream meanders along the continental margin from the 

Florida Straights to Cape Hatteras. Geophysical Research Letters 6:280-282.

Bane, J.M., Jr., D.A. Brooks, and K.R. Lorenson. 1981. Synoptic observations of the three dimensional 

structure and propagation of Gulf Stream meanders along the Carolina continental margin. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 86:6411-6425.

Blanton, J.O., F.B. Schwing, A.H. Weber, L.J. Pietrafesa, and D.W. Hayes. 1985. Wind stress 

climatology in the South Atlantic Bight. In: Atkinson, L.P., D.W. Menzel, and K.A. Bush, eds. 

Oceanography of the southeastern U.S. continental shelf. Washington, DC: American Geophysical 

Union. Pp. 10-22. 

Boyles, R.P., C. Holder, and S. Raman. 2004. North Carolina climate: A summary of climate normals 

and averages at 18 agricultural research stations. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, 

College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Technical 

Bulletin 322.
Physical and Environmental Settings F-23

Brooks, D.A. 1996. Physical oceanography of the shelf and slope seas from Cape Hatteras to George's 

Bank: A brief review, pp. 47-74. In: Sherman, K., N.A. Jaworski, and T.J. Smayda, eds. The 

northeast shelf ecosystem: Assessment, sustainability, and management. Cambridge, MA: 

Blackwell Science, Inc. 

Buchan, K.C. 2000. The Bahamas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41:94-111.

Coastal Ocean Research and Monitoring Program. 2011. Description of Onslow Bay coastal 

climatology. Internet website: http://www.cormp.org/climate/OB_climatology.html. Accessed 

August 19, 2011. 

Cook, S.K. 1988. Physical oceanography of the Middle Atlantic Bight, pp. 1-49. In: Pacheco, A.L., ed. 

Characterization of the Middle Atlantic Water Management Unit of the Northeast Regional Action 

Plan. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, Woods Hole, MA. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-F/NEC-56. 

Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies. 2008. Surface currents in the Atlantic Ocean: 

Drifting buoy spaghetti maps. Internet website: http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/

spaghetti-bw/florida.jpg. Accessed September 13, 2011. Last updated 2008. 

Farrington, J.W. 1987. Hydrocarbons, pp. 130-139. 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. 

Florida Institute of Oceanography. 1986. Physical oceanographic study of Florida’s Atlantic coast region 

- Florida Atlantic Coast Study (FACTS). Volume 2: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 86-0079.

García-Moliner, G. and J.A. Yoder. 1994. Variability in pigment concentration in warm-core rings as 

determined by coastal zone color scanner satellite imagery from the Mid-Atlantic Bight. J. Geophys. 

Res. 99(C7):14277–14290.

Guccione, J. and D.L. Zachary. 2000. Geologic history of the southeastern United States and its effects 

on soils of the region. In: Scott, H.D., ed. Water and chemical transport in soils of the southeastern 

USA. Electronic Document for the SAAESD, Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin #395.

Gyory, J., A.J. Mariano, and E.H. Ryan. 2005. The Gulf Stream. Surface currents in the Atlantic Ocean. 

Internet website: http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/gulf-stream.html. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

Hagy, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Keefe, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950-2001: 

Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading. Estuaries 27:634–658.

Heezen, B.C., M. Tharp, and M. Ewing. 1959. The floors of the oceans, 1: The North Atlantic. The 

Geological Society of America Special Paper 65. 122 pp.

Joyce, T.M. 1987. Meteorology and air-sea interactions. 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. 5-26. 

Kennett, J.P. 1982. Marine geology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lee, R.F. 1979. Chapter 3: Hydrocarbons in water, sediment, zooplankton, benthic fauna, and demersal 

fishes 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. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, DC. Contract No. AA551-CT7-2. Internet website: http://

www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4453.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

Lee, T.N. and E. Waddell. 1983. On Gulf Stream variability and meanders over the Blake Plateau at 

30oN. Journal of Geophysical Research 88:4617-4632.
F-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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 28:347-348.

Lentz, S.J., S. Elgar, and R.T. Guza. 2003. Observations of the flow field near the nose of a buoyant 

coastal current. Journal of Physical Oceanography 33:933-943.

Louis Berger Group, Inc. 1999. Environmental report: 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, Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 99-0036. 

Macintyre, I.G. and J.D. Milliman. 1970. Physiographic features on the outer shelf and upper continental 

slope, Atlantic continental margin, southeastern United States. Bulletin of the American Geological 

Society 81:2577-2598.

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 

49:1-7.

Mann, K.H. and J.R.N. Lazier. 1996. Dynamics of marine ecosystems: Biological-physical interactions 

in the sea. Second edition. Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 394 pp.

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. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(2):711-718. 

Internet website: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8gg9h13q. Accessed July 10, 2012.

McGregor, B.A. 1983. Environmental geologic studies on the United States Mid- and North Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf area 1980–1982. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 83-824.

Milliman, J.D. and R.H. Meade. 1983. World-wide delivery of river sediment to the oceans. J. Geology 

91:1-21.

Milliman, J.D., F.T. Manheim, R.M. Pratt, and E.F.K. Zarudski. 1967. Alvin dives on the continental 

margin off the southeastern United States, July 2-13, 1967. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Ref. No. 67-80. 64 pp.

Milliman, J.D., O.H. Pilkey, and D.A. Ross. 1972. Sediments of the continental margin of the eastern 

United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin 83:1315-1334.

National Research Council. 2003. 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. 

Newton, J.G., O.H. Pilkey, and O.H. Blanton. 1971. An oceanographic atlas of the Carolina continental 

margin. Division of Mineral Resources, North Carolina Dept. of Conservation and Development, 

Raleigh, NC. 57 pp.

Pickard, G.L. and W.J. Emery. 1990. Descriptive physical oceanography, an introduction. 5th edition. 

Woburn, MA: Elsevier. 

Pilkey, O.H., F. Keer, and S. Keer. 1979. Surficial sediments of the U.S. Atlantic southeastern United 

States continental shelf, Chapter 5. In: South Atlantic OCS geological studies: Final report 

FY 1976. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management by the 

U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Marine Geology, Washington, DC.

Popenoe, P. 1981. A summary of environmental geologic studies on the southeastern United States 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, 1977–1978. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open-File Report 81-583. Internet 

website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/1/1157.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

Poppe, L.J., S.J. Williams, and V.F. Paskevich. 2005. U.S. Geological Survey east-coast sediment 

analysis: Procedures, database, and GIS data. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. 

Open-File Report 2005-1001. Internet website: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/openfile/of2005-1001/. 

Accessed August 19, 2011. 
Physical and Environmental Settings F-25

Port of Charleston. 2013a. Top ten U.S. seaport districts in dollar value of goods handled, calendar year 

2012. Internet website: http://www.scspa.com/About/statistics/dollarvalue.asp. Accessed 

October 31, 2013.

Port of Charleston. 2013b. Air quality report shows improvement in equipment, truck emissions. 

Internet website: http://www.scspa.com/about/news/pressroom/pressroom.asp?PressRelease=380. 

Accessed 27 October 2013.

Port of Jacksonville. 2013a. Statistics, JAXPORT cruise passenger statistics, JAXPORT cargo ctatistics. 

Internet website: http://www.jaxport.com/cargo/maritime-resources/marine-statistics. Accessed 

October 29, 2013.

Port of Jacksonville. 2013b. Coalition for Responsible Transportation announces JAXPORT as newest 

partner in clean air efforts. Internet website: http://www.jaxport.com/about-jaxport/newsroom/

news/coalition-responsible-transportation-announces-jaxport-newest-partner-cl. Accessed 

October 29, 2013.

Port of Savannah. 2013. Port of Savannah, total annual vessels calls for fiscal year (July – June) 2009 

through 2013. Prepared by the Georgia Ports Authority. Internet website: 

http://www.gaports.com/Portals/2/Market%20Intelligence/FY13%20Annual%20Vessel%20Calls.pdf. 

Accessed October 30, 2013.

Port of Virginia. 2013. Air and water quality. Internet website: http://www.portofvirginia.com/

environment/air-water-quality.aspx. Accessed October 30, 2013.

Port of Wilmington. 2013. Port of Wilmington 2012 statistics. Internet website: 

http://www.ncports.com/elements/media/files/port-wilmington-2012-statistics.pdf. Accessed

October 29, 2013.

Ray, G.C., M.G. McCormick-Ray, J.A. Dobbin, C.N. Ehler, and D.J. Basta. 1980. Eastern United States 

coastal and ocean zones data atlas. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the 

President and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

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.

Science Applications International Corporation. 1984. South Atlantic OCS physical oceanography: 

Final report (year five). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS 

Region, Vienna, VA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-29201.

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.

Shen, C.Y. R.A. Fusina, and L.K. Shay. 2000. An assessment of local coastal dynamics observed with 

high-frequency radar. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(C3):6517-6530.

Shepard, F.P. 1973. Submarine geology. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Harper and Row. 

Shor, A.N. and C.E. McClennen. 1988. Marine physiography of the U.S. Atlantic Margin. In: 

Sheridan, R.E. and J.A. Grow, eds. The Atlantic continental margin. Volume I-2. The Decade of 

North American Geology Project. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO. Pp. 9-18.

Smith, C.L., W.G. MacIntyre, and C.W. Wu. 1979. Chapter 9: Hydrocarbons. In: Middle Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf environmental studies. Volume 2-B. Chemical and biological benchmark 

studies. Prepared by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Contract No. AA550-CT6-62. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4479.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2011.

Southeast Regional Climate Center. 2011a. Lewes, Delaware (075320): Period of record monthly 

climate summary. Internet website: http://www.sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?de5320. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.
F-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Southeast Regional Climate Center. 2011b. Cape Hatteras WSO, North Carolina (311458): Period of 

record monthly climate summary. Internet website: http://www.sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/

cliMAIN.pl?nc1458. Accessed August 19, 2011.

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.

Stetson T.R., E. Uchupi, and J.D. Milliman. 1969. Surface and subsurface morphology of two small 

areas of the Blake Plateau. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. 19:131-142.

Tomczak, M. and J.S. Godfrey. 2003. Regional oceanography: An introduction. 2nd edition. 390 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/pdfversion.html. Accessed 

August 19, 2011.

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. 

Uchupi, E. 1968. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States – physiography. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior ,Geological Survey. Professional Paper 529-D. 30 pp.

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 the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

NOAA, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. 179 pp.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Assessing risk to 

ecological resources. Pollutants in the environment. Posted November 13, 2008. Internet website: 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_

topic%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=783&subtopic_id%

28entry_subtopic_topic%29=5&topic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=2. Posted November 13, 

2008. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012a. NOAA National 

Weather Service, National Hurricane Center. Post-tropical Cyclone SANDY forecast discussion. 

Internet website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT3+shtml/232035.shtml. 

Accessed January 21, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012b. NOAA 

Environmental Visualization Laboratory. Sandy makes landfall. Internet website: 

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail2.php?MediaID=1226&MediaTypeID=1. Accessed January 

21, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012c. NOAA explorers 

discover deepwater gas seeps off U.S. Atlantic coast. Internet website: 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121219_gas_seeps.html. Accessed October 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data 

Center. 2013a. Hurricanes. Special reports. Internet website: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/

climate/severeweather/hurricanes.html#special. Accessed January 24, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data 

Center. 2013b. Landfalling hurricanes. Internet website: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/

images/2011-Landfalling-Hurricanes-11x17.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2013. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data 

Center. 2013c. State of the climate. Hurricanes & tropical storms - annual 2012. Internet website: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2012/13. Accessed January 24, 2013. 
Physical and Environmental Settings F-27

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Data Buoy Center. 

2011a. Station 41009 (LLNR 840) - Canaveral 20 nm east of Cape Canaveral, FL: Element air 

temperature. Internet website: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history.php?station=41009. 

Updated September 15, 2010. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Data Buoy Center. 

2011b. Moored buoy program. Internet website: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/mooredbuoy.shtml. 

Updated February 4, 2008. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Data Buoy Center. 

2011c. Station 44009 (LLNR 168) - Delaware Bay 26 nm southeast of Cape May, NJ: Element air 

temperature. Internet website: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history.php?station=44009. 

Updated September 15, 2010. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Data Buoy Center. 

2011d. Station 41001 (LLNR 635) - 150 nm east of Cape Hatteras: Element air temperature. 

Internet website: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history.php?station=41001. Updated September 

15, 2010. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. 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, Minerals Management Service. 1992. Outer continental shelf natural gas and 

oil resource management comprehensive program, 1992−1997; final environmental impact statement. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Environmental Projects Coordination 

Branch, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 92-0004. 

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 1986. U.S. Navy climatic study of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, 

Volume 3. Florida coastal waters and southwest Atlantic. Naval Oceanography Command 

Detachment, Asheville, NC. NAVAIR 50-1C-545. 198 pp.

U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 1995. Environmental documentation for candidate site analysis for SEAWOLF 

shock test program, Mayport, Florida and Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared by Ecology and Environment, 

Inc. for the U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Conditions of the Mid-Atlantic estuaries. Office of 

Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA-600-R-98-147. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. National coastal condition report III. Office of Research 

and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-842/R-08/002. Internet website: http://

water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/downloads.cfm. Updated February 15, 2011. Accessed 

August 19, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Proposal to designate an emission control area for 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter. Technical Support Document. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09007.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Designation of North American emission control area to 

reduce emissions from ships. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/

ci/420f10015.pdf. Accessed: 29 October 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. Dredged material management. Internet website: http://

water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/dredgemgmt.cfm. Updated March 24, 2011. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; vessel 

discharges. Internet website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=350. Updated 

January 4, 2011. Accessed August 19, 2011. 
F-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National coastal condition report IV. Office of Research 

and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-842-R-10-003. Internet website: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/upload/0_NCCR_4_Report_508_bookmarks.pdf. 

Updated February 15, 2011. Accessed September 30, 2013. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Mid-Atlantic air protection: Mid-Atlantic region 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment & maintenance areas. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airquality/

ozone8hrmaintareas_2.htm. Updated July 3, 2012. Accessed August 5, 2013. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013a. Air quality statistics report. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_con.html. Accessed October 29, 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013b. Air quality index report. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html. Accessed October 29, 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013c. Green Book: Counties designated “nonattainment” or 

“maintenance” for Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/mapnmpoll.html. Accessed August 5, 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013d. List of 156 mandatory Class I federal areas. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/visibility/class1.html. Accessed October 27, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Coastal change hazards: Hurricanes and extreme storms. Internet 

website: http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/sandy/. Accessed January 21, 2013.

Van Vleet, E.S. 1984. Fingerprinting oil spills in the marine environment. Marine Technology Society 

Journal 18(3):11-23.

Verity, P.G., T.N. Lee, J.A. Yoder, G.A. Paffenhöfer, J.O. Blanton, and C.R. Alexander. 1993. Outer 

shelf processes. In: Menzel, D.W., ed. Ocean processes: U.S. Southeast Continental Shelf: A 

summary of research conducted in the South Atlantic Bight under the auspices of the U.S. Dept. of 

Energy from 1977 to 1991. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC. Pp. 45-74. 

Von Arx, W.S., H.B. Stewart, and J.R. Apel. 1974. The Florida Current as a potential source of useable 

energy. In: Proceedings of the McArthur Workshop on the Feasibility of Extracting Useable Energy 

from the Florida Current. NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories, Miami, 

FL. Pp. 91-103.

Voulgaris, G. 2013. Chapter 3: Physical oceanography and air-sea interactions. In: Michel, J., ed. 

South Atlantic information resources: Data search and literature synthesis. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 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. 

White, S.M. 2013. Chapter 2: Geological oceanography. In: Michel, J., ed. South Atlantic information 

resources: Data search and literature synthesis. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, 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. 

Windom, H.L. 2013. Chapter 4: Chemical oceanography. In: Michel, J., ed. South Atlantic 

information resources: Data search and literature synthesis. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, 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. 

Windom, H.L and P.R. Betzer. 1979. Chapter 4: Trace metal chemistry 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. 

Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Contract 

No. AA551-CT7-2. Internet website: http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4453.pdf. 

Accessed August 19, 2011.
APPENDIX G 

 

RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM,

ATLANTIC OCS REGION, 2006 TO PRESENT

Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program, Atlantic OCS Region, 2006 to Present G-3

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) funds ocean research through the Environmental 

Studies Program to provide science in support of management decisions. This Appendix lists 

Environmental Studies Program publications issued from 2006 to the present that are relevant to the 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Atlantic OCS publications are available online through the 

BOEM Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS) (http://www.data.boem.gov/

homepg/data_center/other/espis/espismaster.asp?appid=1). 

Study Number Title

2013

BOEM 2013-01163

Information Synthesis on the Potential for Bat Interactions with Offshore Wind Facilities 

– Final Report

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5289.pdf

BOEM 2013-01157 South Atlantic Information Resources: Data Search and Literature Synthesis

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5296.pdf

BOEM 2013-01110

Meteorological and Wave Measurements for Improving Meteorological and Air Quality 

Modeling

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5287.pdf

BOEM 2013-123

Improving Emission Estimates and Understanding of Pollutant Dispersal for Impact 

Analysis of Beach Nourishment and Coastal Restoration Projects

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5300.pdf

BOEM 2013-0116

Evaluation of Lighting Schemes for Offshore Wind Facilities and Impacts to Local 

Environments

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5298.pdf

BOEM 2013-01130

High-resolution Aerial Imaging Surveys of Marine Birds, Mammals, and Turtles on the 

US Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf—Utility Assessment, Methodology 

Recommendations, and Implementation Tools: Final Report

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5272.pdf

BOEM 2013-0119

Review of Biological and Biophysical Impacts from Dredging and Handling of Offshore 

Sand

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5268.pdf

2012

BOEM 2012-01156

Underwater Hearing Sensitivity of the Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea):

Assessing the Potential Effect of Anthropogenic Noise

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5279.pdf

BOEM 2012-085

Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism Economic Baseline 

Development Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5228.pdf

BOEM 2012-083

Identification of Outer Continental Shelf Renewable Energy Space-Use Conflicts and 

Analysis of Potential Mitigation Measures

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5203.pdf

BOEM 2012-082

Developing Environmental Protocols and Modeling Tools to Support Ocean Renewable 

Energy and Stewardship. National Oceanographic Partnership Program

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5208.pdf

BOEM 2012-076

Compendium of Avian Occurrence Information for the Continental Shelf Waters along 

the Atlantic Coast of the United States: Final Report (Database Selection – Shorebirds)

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5193.pdf

BOEM 2012-008

Inventory and Analysis of Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5196.pdf

BOEMRE 2012-003

Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Characterization Activities on the Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Smart_from_

the_Start/Mid-Atlantic_Final_EA_012012.pdf

No Number

Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic from 

Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities: Literature Synthesis

http://www.boemsoundworkshop.com/documents/Literature_Synthesis_Effects_of_

Noise_on_Fish_Fisheries_and_Invertebrates.pdf
G-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2011

BOEMRE 049-2011 Atlantic Wind Energy Workshop: Summary Report, Final 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5124.pdf

BOEMRE 2011-048

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: Final 

Report 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/5119.pdf

BOEMRE 2011-019

A Comparison of Marine Productivity Among Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas: 

Final Report

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5121.pdf

2010

BOEMRE TA&R 648

Offshore Wind Energy Installation and Decommissioning Cost Estimation in the 

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf

http://www.bsee.gov/uploadedFiles/BSEE/Research_and_Training/Technology_Assessm

ent_and_Research/648aa.pdf

MMS 2010-010

Analysis of Potential Biological and Physical Impacts of Dredging on Offshore Ridge 

and Shoal Features: Final Report

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5199.pdf

2009

MMS 2009-020 Determining Night-time Distribution of Long-tailed Ducks Using Satellite Telemetry

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4823.pdf

MMS 2009-011

Workshop on Environmental Research Needs in Support of Potential Virginia Offshore 

Oil and Gas Activities

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4723.pdf

2008

MMS 2008-060

Final Biological Characterization and Numerical Wave Model Analysis within Borrow 

Sites Offshore of Florida’s Northeast Coast Report: Volume I

http://www.boem.gov/Non-Energy-Minerals/2008-060_Volume1.aspx

2007

MMS 2007-057 Workshop to Identify Alternative Energy Environmental Information Needs

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4291.pdf

MMS 2007-048

Examination of the Physical and Biological Implications of Using Buried Channel 

Deposits and Other Non-Topographic Offshore Features as Beach Nourishment Material

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4274.pdf

MMS-2007-038

Worldwide Synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information Regarding Environmental 

Effects of Alternative Energy Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4325.pdf

MMS 2007-033 Cooperative Research to Study Dive Patterns of Sperm Whales in the Atlantic Ocean

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4247.pdf

2006

MMS 2006-065

Investigation of Dredging Impacts on Commercial and Recreational Fisheries and 

Analysis of Available Mitigation Measures to Protect and Preserve Resources

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4268.pdf
APPENDIX H 

 

MARINE MAMMAL HEARING AND

SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS

Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... H-1

2. ROLE OF ACOUSTICS IN MARINE MAMMAL ECOLOGY ..................................................... H-1

3. HEARING IN MARINE MAMMALS............................................................................................. H-2

3.1. Hearing in Mysticete Cetaceans.............................................................................................. H-4

3.2. Hearing in Odontocete Cetaceans........................................................................................... H-4

3.3. Hearing in Pinnipeds and Manatees........................................................................................ H-5

3.4. Marine Mammal Hearing Weighting Functions..................................................................... H-5

4. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MARINE MAMMAL HEARING AND BEHAVIOR.......................... H-7

4.1. Effects of Noise on Marine Mammal Physiology................................................................... H-7

4.2. Effects of Noise on Marine Mammal Hearing........................................................................ H-7

4.2.1. Temporary and Permanent Threshold Shift in Marine Mammals............................... H-8

4.2.2. Auditory Masking ....................................................................................................... H-9

4.3. Effects of Noise on Marine Mammal Behavior.................................................................... H-10

5. MARINE MAMMAL NOISE EXPOSURE CRITERIA ............................................................... H-10

6. ASSESSMENT OF HEARING INFORMATION FOR SPECIES/GROUPS IN THE AREA 

OF INTEREST................................................................................................................................ H-18

7. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................... H-18

Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-v 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure H-1. Frequency Range of Sounds Generally Produced by Different Marine Animal 

Groups Shown Relative to Major Human Noise Sources................................................... H-2

Figure H-2. Typical Hearing Curve or “Audiogram” Obtained from a California Sea Lion with a 

Behavioral Testing Technique ............................................................................................ H-3

Figure H-3. Measured or Estimated Functional Hearing Ranges for Different Marine Vertebrate 

Groups Shown Relative to Various Human Noise Sources................................................ H-4

Figure H-4. Frequency-Weighting Functions for Cetaceans (left) and Pinnipeds in Air and 

Water (right) Proposed by Southall et al. (2007)................................................................ H-6

Figure H-5. Time Series Plot Showing a Calling Blue Whale and the Increasing Noise (and 

Masking) in the Same Low-Frequency Band from an Approaching Vessel....................... H-9

Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table H-1. Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups and Estimated Functional Hearing 

Ranges Proposed by Southall et al. (2007) ......................................................................... H-6

Table H-2. Sound Source Categories, Acoustic Characteristics, and Examples, as Proposed by 

Southall et al. (2007)......................................................................................................... H-11

Table H-3. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria for Injury for Different Marine Mammal 

Functional Hearing Groups Proposed by Southall et al. (2007) ....................................... H-13

Table H-4. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria for Behavior for Different Marine 

Mammal Functional Hearing Groups Proposed by Southall et al. (2007)....................... H-14

Table H-5. Southall et al. (2007) Assessment of Individual Behavioral Responses of 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans to Multiple-Pulse Exposure for Various Received Levels .... H-16

Table H-6. Modified Injury Sound Exposure Level (SEL) Thresholds for Multiple Pulses Used 

in This Analysis and Those Originally Proposed by Southall et al. (2007) to 

Estimate Onset of Acoustic Injury (Level A - PTS) ......................................................... H-17

Table H-7. Probabilistic Disturbance rms Sound Pressure Level Thresholds (M-Weighted) 

Used in the Current Analysis to Predict a Level B Behavioral Response......................... H-17

Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-1 

1. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

Marine animals critically depend on sound to live, making and listening to it in various ways to 

perform various life functions. The ocean is a naturally noisy place, but humans make a host of sounds 

that are increasingly impinging on the ocean acoustic environment. There is clear evidence that some of 

these sounds can negatively impact marine life, but the types and magnitudes of impacts as they relate to 

different species and sound types remain poorly understood in all but a few conditions. However, there 

has been significant progress in the last decade, particularly in scientific knowledge in these areas, for 

some species and conditions, both in terms of hearing impacts and behavioral responses to various kinds 

of noise. From this evolution in understanding has emerged new ways of assessing and mitigating 

potential impacts. While much of the focus and discussion have been on potential injurious types of 

sound impacts (driven by concerns over hearing/tissue damage and the isolated mass strandings of beaked 

whales exposed to military sonar), more focus recently has been on the impacts of human noise on 

biologically significant behaviors and the overall acoustic ecology of marine life. There is a realization 

that the footprints within which direct harm may occur are relatively small, and the conditions in which 

marine mammals will become stranded appear to be restricted. However, the areas over which animals 

may be disturbed in significant ways that may impact vital life functions can be significantly larger. 

These considerations and the underlying complexity of understanding and assessing their probability of 

occurrence, as well as mitigation, have become more critical in noise exposure criteria and other means of 

assessment. Many of these issues and the underlying science are considered in detail in a major 

comprehensive review and application of science in the context of noise exposure criteria (Southall et al., 

2007). That assessment forms the current basis for much of this appendix, but subsequent studies have 

provided additional important findings that are also summarized here. 

This appendix summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge about the importance of sound 

and effects of noise on marine animals, with particular attention to marine mammals. It considers 

separately the effects of noise on physiology, hearing, communication, and behavior from a range of 

different impulsive and continuous sound sources. It also considers historical and emerging noise 

exposure criteria and operational mitigation measures, with attention to the types of acoustic sources 

present in the proposed geological and geophysical (G&G) operations off the U.S. East Coast. Finally, 

noise impacts for endangered/threatened species most likely to be present in these areas are considered.

2. ROLE OF ACOUSTICS IN MARINE MAMMAL ECOLOGY

The underwater acoustic environment can be a noisy place, receiving sound from a host of natural and 

anthropogenic sources. Some natural sounds are biological (e.g., fishes, marine mammals, some 

invertebrates), and others are environmental (e.g., waves, earthquakes, rain). Among the anthropogenic 

sources, many produce noise as a by-product of their normal operations (e.g., shipping, drilling, tidal 

turbines), whereas others (e.g., sonars, airguns) are produced for a specific remote sensing purpose

(see Hildebrand [2009] for a recent review). Detailed measurements have been made for many of these 

sources, but their degree of overlap with and impacts on acoustically oriented marine life remains 

generally poorly understood.

For most marine vertebrates, the production and reception of sound serves critical biological 

functions, including communication, foraging, navigation, and predator-avoidance (e.g., Schusterman, 

1981; Watkins and Wartzok, 1985; Richardson et al., 1995; Tyack, 1998; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; 

National Research Council [NRC], 2003; 2005; Clark and Ellison, 2004; Southall et al., 2007). As a 

general statement, all studied marine mammals produce sounds in a variety of inter- and intra-individual 

contexts, most associated with vital life functions as identified by the NRC (2005). As described below 

and shown in Figure H-1 in comparison with some of the major human noise sources, each species group 

utilizes different frequency ranges.
H-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure H-1. Frequency Range of Sounds Generally Produced by Different Marine Animal 

Groups Shown Relative to Major Human Noise Sources.

Dolphins, porpoises, and other toothed whales (odontocete cetaceans) have developed sophisticated 

biosonar capabilities involving high frequency impulsive clicks to feed and navigate (Au, 1993) and use a 

variety of whistles and other calls to communicate in social interactions. These animals make sounds

across some of the widest frequency bands that have been measured in any animal group. 

Communicative sounds generally range from a few hundreds of hertz to several tens of kilohertz, but

echolocation clicks can extend above 100 kHz.

Baleen whales (mysticete cetaceans) have developed moderate to long-range communication 

capabilities for reproductive and social interactions and to orient themselves in the underwater world

(e.g., Clark, 1990; Popper and Edds-Walton, 1997). Large whales generally produce low-frequency

sounds in the tens of hertz to the several kilohertz band, with a few signals extending above 10 kHz. 

Other marine mammals such as pinnipeds, manatees, and polar bears make and listen to sounds for a 

variety of communicative and spatial orientation functions, but like the large whales they appear to lack 

specialized echolocation capabilities (Schusterman, 1981; Schusterman et al., 2000). These sounds can 

extend above those used by mysticetes but occur over a narrower frequency band than those used by 

odontocetes, generally from ~100 Hz to several tens of kilohertz. Pinnipeds and polar bears spend time

both at sea and on land, however, and thus rely on sounds both above and below the water. 

Finally, many fishes make and listen to sounds in mating and other social interactions (Kaatz, 2002). 

Most of these sounds are generally low-frequency in nature, although some fishes produce more 

impulsive sounds as well. Aside from some simple hissing and other sounds produced in air, marine 

turtles generally do not appear to produce sounds in water for communicative or foraging purposes, but 

may rely on sound in a general orienting sense.

3. HEARING IN MARINE MAMMALS 

Hearing has been measured using behavioral and/or electrophysiological methods in about a quarter 

of the known marine mammal species, although with a disproportional representation of species 

Frequency Relationships Between Marine 

Animal Sounds and Human Noise Sources

Seals and Sea Lions

Dolphins

Porpoises

Fish

Whales

Shipping, Seismic Surveys, 

Oil and Gas Drilling

Tactical

military

sonar

Echosounders and 

other mapping sonars

Long range

military sonars

1 Hz 10 Hz 100 Hz 1 kHz 10 kHz 100 kHz

200 kHz
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-3 

commonly found in captivity, and some entire groups (e.g., mysticete cetaceans) remain untested. For a 

detailed review, see Southall et al. (2007); key findings obtained since then are discussed below. Hearing 

sensitivity is generally quantified by determining the quietest possible sound that is detectable by an 

animal (either via a behavioral response or by quantifying an electrical response) on some signal 

presentations. By testing such responses across a range of test frequencies, a measure of the animal’s 

overall hearing capability (typically called an “audiogram”) may be obtained; an example is given in 

Figure H-2. 

Figure H-2. Typical Hearing Curve or “Audiogram” Obtained from a California Sea 

Lion with a Behavioral Testing Technique.

Where detection threshold levels are lower, hearing sensitivity is greater (the animal can hear well), 

and vice versa. This sensitivity usually follows a U-shaped curve with regions of relatively good 

sensitivity that drop off on the low and high ends. The region of lowest overall average hearing is called 

the range of “best hearing sensitivity.” Similarly, the region where hearing thresholds are within some 

range from the lowest overall threshold (e.g., 80 dB in Southall et al., 2007) is often referred to as the 

overall range of functional hearing. 

Given the available direct measurements of hearing, extrapolations based on taxonomy, and 

predictions based on auditory morphology, vocalizations, or behavior, it is clear that not all marine taxa 

have equal hearing frequency ranges or absolute hearing sensitivity (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Southall et al., 2007). 

As shown in Figure H-3, most marine taxa have measured or estimated (in the case of baleen whales) 

functional hearing capabilities that occur in generally similar frequency ranges as those where their 

vocalizations occur. However, for some species there can be substantial differences in auditory 

capabilities relative to vocal parameters (Ladich and Yan, 1998); in some cases perception may be 

slightly broader than the frequency range of vocalizations (Luther and Wiley, 2009). It is important to 

note the differences in frequency ranges of vocalizations and hearing; both are given here in Figures H-1

and H-3 as vocal frequency ranges may be particularly important with regard to potential interference of 

communication from noise whereas hearing sensitivity is an important consideration with regard to direct 

auditory impacts such as temporary or permanent threshold shift.

Hearing measured at multiple discrete 

frequencies using various techniques

120

110

90

80

70

60

50

10 100 1000 10000 100000

Frequency (Hz)

dB (re: 1 

μPa)

Measuring Hearing in Marine Animals

Source: Southall et al. 2005

100
H-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Fishes generally hear in a relatively narrow frequency band up to just a few kilohertz, while marine 

mammals as a whole cover a very wide band, with baleen whales likely hearing down into very low 

frequencies, pinnipeds at low to intermediate frequencies (relatively), and odontocete cetaceans hearing 

over a very broad range extending well into the ultrasonic (for humans) range. Recently, functional 

hearing has been demonstrated in a marine invertebrate as well (longfin squid; see Mooney et al., 2010). 

Specific hearing characteristics for different marine mammal groups are described below.

Figure H-3. Measured or Estimated Functional Hearing Ranges for Different Marine Vertebrate 

Groups Shown Relative to Various Human Noise Sources.

3.1. HEARING IN MYSTICETE CETACEANS

Because of the lack of captive subjects and logistical challenges of bringing experimental subjects 

into the laboratory, direct measurements of mysticete hearing are unavailable, although there was an 

unsuccessful attempt to directly measure hearing in a stranded gray whale calf by Ridgway and Carder 

(2001). Consequently, hearing in mysticetes is estimated based on other means such as vocalizations 

(Wartzok and Ketten, 1999), anatomy (Houser et al., 2001; Parks et al., 2007), behavioral responses to 

sound (Frankel, 2005; Reichmuth, 2007), and nominal natural background noise conditions in the likely 

frequency ranges of hearing (Clark and Ellison, 2004). 

The combined information from these and other sources strongly suggests that mysticetes are likely 

most sensitive to sound from perhaps tens of hertz to ~10 kHz. However, humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) produce sounds with harmonics extending above 24 kHz (Au et al., 2006), and Ketten et al. 

(2007) suggested, based on anatomical data, that some mysticetes could hear frequencies up to 30 kHz. 

Southall et al. (2007) estimated the lower and upper frequencies for functional hearing in mysticetes, 

collectively, to be 7 Hz and 22 kHz, respectively, but based on the above information this may be a slight 

underestimate on the high frequency cutoff. Nevertheless, there appears to be little doubt that mysticetes 

operate primarily in the very low and low frequency ranges.

3.2. HEARING IN ODONTOCETE CETACEANS

Because of the presence of specialized, high frequency biosonar and lower frequency communication 

systems in odontocete cetaceans, it is almost certain that they hear over an extremely wide frequency 

range, spanning some 12 octaves in some species. Hearing has been directly measured in controlled 

conditions for over a dozen odontocete species with either behavioral or electrophysiological techniques. 

Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the available literature and (like Wartzok and Ketten [1999]) identified 

two functional hearing groups within the odontocetes, which they referred to as mid-frequency cetaceans 
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-5 

(with functional hearing between 150 Hz and 160 kHz) and high-frequency specialists (functional hearing 

estimated between 200 Hz and 180 kHz). Subsequent to the Southall et al. (2007) publication, additional 

data have been obtained on several species that had been previously tested (such as harbor porpoise) and 

measurements or anatomical modeling results have been obtained for several new species – e.g., Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (Cranford et al., 2008a,b) and false killer whales (Montie et al., 2011) suggesting that 

these additional species have similar basic hearing ranges and functional capabilities to other cetaceans. 

These and other studies have contributed to an increased understanding of hearing in odontocete 

cetaceans, but they are fundamentally consistent for these species with the Southall et al. (2007) 

assessment for these species in terms of the broad range and high-frequency extension of functional 

hearing in odontocete cetaceans.

3.3. HEARING IN PINNIPEDS AND MANATEES

Pinnipeds are amphibious mammals and have functional hearing both above and below the water, 

although they have broader functional hearing ranges in water (Kastak and Schusterman, 1998 for a 

discussion). Direct measurements of hearing using behavioral and electrophysiological methods have 

been obtained in nearly 10 different species (Southall et al., 2007; Mulsow and Reichmuth, 2010). 

Southall et al. (2007) estimated functional hearing across all pinnipeds as extending between 75 Hz and 

75 kHz under water and between 75 Hz and 30 kHz in air. However, they also noted that, as in the 

odontocete cetaceans, there appears to be a segregation in functional hearing within pinniped taxa, with 

phocids (seals lacking external ear pinnae that are less mobile on land, such as harbor seals) extending to 

much higher frequencies, especially in water, than otariids (seal lions and fur seals that have distinct 

external ear pinnae and are more agile on land). This would be a logical additional segregation in terms 

of functional hearing within marine mammals. 

Hearing has also been tested both in terms of absolute and masked hearing capabilities in manatees 

(Gerstein et al., 1999; Mann et al., 2005). The combined data suggest that manatees have hearing 

capabilities that are generally similar to phocid pinnipeds except perhaps at the lowest frequencies, with 

functional hearing between about 250 Hz and ~80 kHz. Based on these data, the extrapolation of 

pinniped data to manatees, where information is lacking, would seem reasonable. 

3.4. MARINE MAMMAL HEARING WEIGHTING FUNCTIONS

Because animals including marine mammals do not hear equally well at all frequencies, 

frequency-weighting functions are often used as a means of quantitatively compensating for differential 

frequency responses for different species. These are commonly applied in assessing the potential for the 

detection of a sound at a specific frequency and, more commonly, for assessing potential noise impacts. 

Noise exposure criteria are discussed in greater detail in Section 4. However, as they are related to the 

above generalizations regarding basic hearing in different marine mammal groups, the frequency 

weighting functions derived by Southall et al. (2007) are described briefly here.

Table H-1 shows the five functional hearing groups and estimated functional hearing ranges for 

marine mammals proposed in the Southall et al. (2007) noise exposure criteria. 

Using the estimated lower and upper frequency cut-off limits as 6-dB down points on an exponential 

roll-off for the frequency-weighting functions (as is done in human C-weighting), Southall et al. (2007) 

developed frequency-weighting filters for each of the five functional hearing groups as shown in 

Figure H-4. 
H-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table H-1 

 

Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups and Estimated Functional Hearing Ranges 

Proposed by Southall et al. (2007)

Functional Hearing

Group

Estimated Auditory 

Bandwidth

Genera Represented

(Number Species/Subspecies)

Frequency-Weighting

Network

Low-frequency cetaceans 7 Hz to 22 kHz

Balaena, Caperea, Eschrichtius, 

Megaptera, Balaenoptera

(13 species/subspecies)

Mlf

(lf: low-frequency 

cetaceans)

Mid-frequency cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz

Steno, Sousa, Sotalia, Tursiops, Stenella, 

Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, 

Lagenorhynchus, Lissodelphis, Grampus,

Peponocephala, Feresa, Pseudorca, 

Orcinus, Globicephala, Orcacella, 

Physeter, Delphinapterus, Monodon, 

Ziphius, Berardius, Tasmacetus, 

Hyperoodon, Mesoplodon

(57 species/subspecies)

Mmf

(mf: mid-frequency 

cetaceans)

High-frequency cetaceans 200 Hz to 180 kHz

Phocoena, Neophocaena, Phocoenoides, 

Platanista, Inia, Kogia, Lipotes, 

Pontoporia, Cephalorhynchus

(19 species/subspecies)

Mhf

(hf: high-frequency 

cetaceans)

Pinnipeds in water 75 Hz to 75 kHz

Arctocephalus, Callorhinus, Zalophus, 

Eumetopias, Neophoca, Phocarctos, 

Otaria, Erignathus, Phoca, Pusa, 

Halichoerus, Histriophoca, Pagophilus, 

Cystophora, Monachus, Mirounga, 

Leptonychotes, Ommatophoca, Lobodon, 

Hydrurga, Odobenus

(41 species/subspecies)

Mpw

(pw: pinnipeds in 

water)

Pinnipeds in air 75 Hz to 30 kHz Same species as pinnipeds in water

(41 species/subspecies)

Mpa

(pa: pinnipeds in air)

Figure H-4. Frequency-Weighting Functions for Cetaceans (left) and Pinnipeds in Air and Water (right) 

Proposed by Southall et al. (2007).
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-7 

4. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MARINE MAMMAL HEARING AND 

BEHAVIOR

Where there is an overlap between noise sources and the frequencies of sound used by marine life, 

there may be concerns related to how such sound may interfere with important biological functions. 

Noise, either natural or anthropogenic, can adversely affect marine life in various ways, inducing 

alteration of behavior, reduction of communication ranges or orientation capability, temporary or 

permanent damage to the auditory or other systems; and/or, in extreme cases, habitat avoidance or even 

death (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003, 2005; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). Noise 

impacts may also be additive or synergistic to those of other human stressors. While determining the 

biological significance of noise exposure impacts remains challenging (NRC, 2005), significant strides 

have been made in quantifying the effects of noise on marine mammals. The potential and measured 

effects of noise on physiology, hearing, and behavior are reviewed here, with attention to findings 

subsequent to the Southall et al. (2007) review and assessment of noise impacts on marine mammals.

4.1. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MARINE MAMMAL PHYSIOLOGY

Noise can result in direct, physiological impacts on marine mammals, even in cases where hearing 

impacts or even behavioral responses may be lacking. These may include stress responses and direct 

physical injury (e.g., tissue damage). Stress responses can vary from an acute startle response to more 

chronic effects and can vary widely across individuals in type and magnitude according to a host of 

factors (Busch and Hayward [2009] for a recent review). Stress reactions in humans and other vertebrates 

include various physiological changes to pulmonary, respiratory cardiac, metabolic, neuro-endocrine, 

immune, and reproductive functions; these can vary from relatively benign to very detrimental or fatal in 

some conditions.

Direct measurements of physical stress responses in marine mammals from sound exposure are 

relatively limited (Thomas et al., 1990; Miksis et al., 2001; Romano et al., 2004), although the larger 

body of data for terrestrial mammals and other animals is available and, in some cases, may be useful 

where direct information is lacking (Wright et al., 2007a,b). The available literature for marine mammals 

indicates endocrine secretions of glucocorticoids and altered cardiovascular function in some conditions 

following relatively intense noise exposure.

Direct physical injury can occur from exposure to high levels of sound or, more commonly, to shock 

wave pulses associated with high intensity events such as explosions. These pulses are typically short, 

peak pressures that may damage internal organs or air-filled body cavities, such as lungs (Yelverton et al., 

1973; Goertner, 1982; Young, 1991). Direct data on direct physical injury are limited to anecdotal or 

forensic investigations after accidental events because ethical considerations prevent 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.

Other forms of physiological damage that have been investigated and in some cases shown in marine 

mammals include the formation of gas bubble lesions and fat emboli, similar to those associated with 

human decompression sickness; these have been observed in some beaked whale species that stranded 

around naval mid-frequency sonar training exercises (Jepson et al., 2003; Fernández et al., 2005). 

Currently, these tissue impacts are thought to result from a behavioral response that changes diving 

patterns in some way and subsequently causes lesion/emboli formation, rather than as a direct physical 

effect of sound exposure (Cox et al., 2006; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). These kinds of emboli have not 

been definitively shown in other marine mammals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound to date.

4.2. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MARINE MAMMAL HEARING

Much of the scientific and regulatory attention on the impacts of noise on marine life has centered on 

the issue of how sound affects hearing in marine mammals. While the available literature on the 

underlying issues remains quite limited compared to that available for some terrestrial species, 
H-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

considerable progress has been made in these areas, particularly in the last decade, for marine mammals. 

There have been numerous reviews of the available data on these issues (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten, 1999; NRC, 2003, 2005), the most recent comprehensive assessment being the Southall et al. 

(2007) review and application of the available science in the context of proposing noise exposure criteria 

(see below). A summary description of temporary and permanent hearing losses and auditory masking is 

given here with reference to these reviews generally, and some discussion of more recent relevant 

literature on each issue.

4.2.1. Temporary and Permanent Threshold Shift in Marine Mammals

Noise-induced threshold shifts are increases in hearing thresholds within a certain frequency range 

(Yost, 2000). Following exposure, the magnitude of the threshold shift normally decreases over time 

following cessation of noise exposure. Threshold shifts can be temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS) and 

can consist of both temporary and permanent components. 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 stress or damage (e.g., supporting cell structure fatigue) and 

metabolic (e.g., inner ear hair cell metabolism, such as energy production, protein synthesis, and ion 

transport) processes within the auditory system underlie both TTS and PTS (Kryter, 1994; Ward, 1997; 

Yost, 2000). Intense sound exposure more often results in mechanical processes, whereas prolonged 

exposure more typically results in metabolic changes (e.g., Saunders et al., 1985).

Temporary threshold shift is a relatively short-term reversible loss of hearing, often resulting from 

cellular fatigue and metabolic changes. Based on data from cetacean TTS studies (Southall et al., 2007), 

a threshold shift of 6 dB is generally considered the minimum threshold shift that is statistically larger 

than typical day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject’s baseline threshold at a particular 

frequency. Conversely, PTS is an irreversible loss of hearing (permanent damage) that commonly results 

from inner ear hair cell loss and/or severe damage or other structural damage to auditory tissues 

(e.g., Saunders et al., 1985; Henderson et al., 2008). Permanent threshold shift data are typically not 

collected in marine mammals owing to ethical and permitting reasons, but a recent TTS experiment was 

found to unintentionally induce PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008). Southall et al. (2007) reviewed 

the available terrestrial literature and concluded that 40 dB of TTS was a reasonable and conservative 

approximation of PTS onset for marine mammals (Henderson et al., 2008 for a consideration of the 

human literature in this regard).

Temporary threshold shift has been measured in three cetacean and three pinniped species using both 

impulsive and continuous noise; many of these data were reviewed in detail by Southall et al. (2007), but 

there are some notable new data that change some of the conclusions reached in that assessment. In 

general, it appears that marine mammal auditory systems are relatively resilient to noise exposure and that 

relatively intense sounds are required to cause TTS and, given some simplifying assumptions to 

extrapolate to 40 dB TTS, PTS as well. However, there are clear differences in terms of the sound 

exposure types and some major differences between species as well. As in terrestrial mammals, marine 

mammals experience TTS at relatively lower onset levels for impulsive noise than for non-impulsive 

noise. The relative TTS onset levels for different marine mammal groups from the Southall et al. (2007) 

criteria are discussed in the section below regarding exposure criteria. However, some modifications to 

these criteria would now be in order, as expected, based on subsequent information. 

New data are available demonstrating much lower (>20 dB) TTS-onset exposure levels for harbor 

porpoises exposed to impulse noise (airguns) than has been measured in other odontocetes (Lucke et al., 

2009). These data are significant because they are the only TTS measurements available for any 

individual in the high-frequency cetacean functional hearing group and would arguably be used as the 

representative value for these species rather than using the extrapolated (though much more expansive)

data for mid-frequency cetaceans in predicting auditory fatigue. In addition, several studies have 

contributed to an expanded understanding of TTS onset and growth at a range of sound frequencies in 

odontocete cetaceans. Mooney et al. (2009a,b) demonstrate conditions where equal energy assumptions 

about exposure of different durations and levels fail to accurately predict TTS onset and growth. 

Finneran and Schlundt (2010) and Finneran et al. (2010a,b) provide additional TTS data for bottlenose 

dolphins, demonstrating a greater sensitivity (10-20 dB) to noise exposure (lower absolute TTS onset 

levels) and a more rapid growth of TTS with increasing noise exposure level at higher frequencies within 
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-9 

their region of best sensitivity than had been tested when the Southall et al. (2007) criteria were 

published. These data suggest that the exposure level relative to the subject’s absolute hearing sensitivity 

(referred to as the sensation level) is particularly important in determining TTS onset. They also suggest 

that exposure levels in the region of best hearing sensitivity should be used as generic TTS-onset values 

against which frequency weighting functions could be applied to correct for frequency-specific hearing. 

These findings are significant for mysticetes despite being made with odontocete cetaceans, as they affect 

the selection of the appropriate TTS-onset values to apply for mysticetes from the odontocete literature 

(since no mysticete TTS values are or for the foreseeable future will be available). 

4.2.2. Auditory Masking

In addition to potential effects on hearing from relatively high levels of sound exposure that would 

generally occur relatively close to anthropogenic sound sources in the field, noise interference 

(“masking”) effects can occur, and likely do over much greater footprints around real sound sources. 

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 for a review). Spectral, 

temporal, and spatial overlap between the masking noise and the sender/receiver determine the extent of 

interference; the greater the spectral and temporal overlap, the greater the potential for masking. 

Southall et al. (2007) considered auditory masking issues and realized the much greater relative areas 

over which this phenomena occurs relative to TTS and PTS, but did not propose explicit exposure criteria 

for marine mammals, owing in part to the very divergent conditions in which masking can occur and a 

lack of clear understanding about defining an “onset” for masking that would be statistically definable 

and biologically meaningful. Largely for the same reasons, masking effects have generally been 

considered only qualitatively in planning of activities and regulatory decisions over noise impacts. 

Subsequent data have demonstrated vocal modifications in marine mammals exposed to noise that are 

presumably the result of anthropogenic masking noise (e.g., Holt et al., 2009). Additionally, Clark et al. 

(2009) provided a quantitative means of determining the relative loss of acoustic communication range 

for marine mammals using specific calls in conditions where they are exposed to specific anthropogenic 

noise sources. 

There is particular concern that low-frequency anthropogenic noise may mask communication in 

baleen whales, which can communicate over long distances and within the same frequency band 

(e.g., Payne and Webb, 1971; Clark et al., 2009). An example of baleen whale calling behavior that is 

increasingly masked by nearby ship noise is shown in Figure H-5. 

Figure H-5. Time Series Plot Showing a Calling Blue Whale and the 

Increasing Noise (and Masking) in the Same Low-Frequency 

Band from an Approaching Vessel (courtesy of C. Clark).

5 10 15 20

time, minutes

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

frequency, Hz

Blue

Whale
H-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.3. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MARINE MAMMAL BEHAVIOR

Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and critically depend on the context of sound 

exposure, as much or more than the level-duration-frequency characteristics that determine the probability 

of auditory effects (Wartzok et al., 2004, Southall et al., 2007). 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:

• none observable – animals can become less sensitive over repeated exposures; 

• looking or increased alertness; 

• minor behavioral responses such as vocal modifications associated with masking; 

• cessation of feeding or social interactions; 

• temporary avoidance behavior (emerging as one of the more common responses); 

• modification of group structure or activity state; 

• habitat abandonment; and/or

• injury and/or death via direct response or possibly exacerbated by physiological 

factors. 

These effects clearly have differing probabilities to affect marine mammal vital rates (NRC, 2005), 

but it has proven (and remains) exceedingly difficult to establish a generally accepted definition and 

criterion for biologically meaningful behavioral disturbance. 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).

Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the considerable available literature on the effects of noise on marine 

mammal hearing in extensive detail, but (other than for single impulse exposures where TTS-onset was 

used as a threshold value for behavioral disturbance) did not find a single metric or identifiable exposure 

level that was broadly applicable as a benchmark for behavioral effects. Several general observations 

were made, including that many of the responses observed across taxa were temporary avoidance 

behavior. Additionally, certain species (e.g., harbor porpoises, beaked whales) appear to be categorically 

more sensitive to noise than other species observed, and certain behavioral states (e.g., migrating) can 

make species such as bowhead whales more sensitive to exposure. Subsequent data have demonstrated 

and quantified behavioral responses of various species, including some of the Endangered Species 

Act-listed marine mammals being considered in this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(Programmatic EIS), to seismic exploration using airguns (Weir, 2008a,b; Miller et al., 2009). Additional 

data have demonstrated behavioral responses of cetaceans to vessels associated with whale-watching 

activities (e.g., Bejder and Lusseau, 2008; Visser et al., 2010) and to the construction of offshore energy 

installations (Thompson et al., 2010). Finally, there has been considerable new information, using both 

controlled exposure experiments and opportunistic observations of anthropogenic noise source operations, 

on the behavioral responses of particularly sensitive marine mammals, including harbor porpoises 

(Kastelein et al., 2008a,b; Gilles et al., 2009) and beaked whales (Caretta et al., 2008; McCarthy et al., 

2011; Southall et al., 2011; Tyack et al., 2011). These studies amplify the conclusions of Southall et al. 

(2007) that these are particularly sensitive species, although it remains unclear whether any additional 

species should be added to this general category.

5. MARINE MAMMAL NOISE EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Beginning in the 1980’s with regulations on oil and gas exploration, sound-producing entities and 

regulatory agencies have been grappling with how to quantitatively predict and operationally mitigate the 

effects of human noise from industrial activities on marine life. While the marine noise issue is an 

increasingly global one, many of the developments on exposure criteria for marine mammals have 

involved U.S. regulatory processes. 
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-11

In June 1997, the High Energy Seismic Survey team (HESS, 1999) 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. With the limited available data at that time, exposure to airgun pulses with 

received levels above 180 dB re 1 μPa (root-mean-square [rms] – averaged over the pulse duration) was 

determined to have a high potential for “serious behavioral, physiological, and hearing effects.” 

Based on the HESS (1999) panel conclusions, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

established a 180 dBrms (received level) threshold criterion for injury from both impulse sound and 

“continuous” (non-impulsive) sound exposure for cetaceans and a 190 dBrms threshold criterion for 

pinnipeds (Federal Register, 2003). Additionally, behavioral response criteria were developed as 

step-function (all-or-none) thresholds based solely on the rms value of received levels, and have been 

used by NMFS, although not entirely consistently. Thresholds for behavioral response from impulse 

sounds are 160 dBrms (received level) for all marine mammals, based on behavioral response data for 

marine mammals exposed to seismic airgun operations (Malme et al., 1983, 1984; Richardson et al., 

1986). Thresholds for behavioral response for “continuous” (non-impulsive) sounds have been 120 dBrms

(for some but not all sound sources) based on the results of Malme et al. (1984) and Richardson et al. 

(1990). 

These acoustic thresholds for seismic and sounds other than those associated with U.S. Navy 

activities are based exclusively on dB rms measurements and 1980’s estimates of such levels associated 

with hearing impact as opposed to the direct measurements that have been made subsequent to 

establishment of the thresholds. The duration over which the rms is calculated can vary significantly for 

impulsive sounds, and the use of this metric for characterizing impulse noise has been questioned 

(Madsen et al., 2006). In addition, the duration and impulsive nature of the sound also determine the 

potential level of PTS. Therefore, thresholds based on rms values alone are not very predictive of the 

likelihood of PTS onset.

Recognizing that the available data on hearing and noise impacts were rapidly evolving and that a 

more comprehensive and scientifically robust method of assessment would be required than these 

simplistic threshold estimates, NMFS supported an expert working group to develop more comprehensive 

and current marine mammal noise exposure criteria. This process ultimately resulted in the Southall et al. 

(2007) marine mammal noise exposure criteria. Within this process, several important segregations were 

made. First, the marine mammals were segregated into the functional hearing groups (not entirely 

taxonomy-based), as described above. Second, sound sources were categorized into functional categories, 

based on their acoustic and repetitive properties (Table H-2). 

Table H-2 

 

Sound Source Categories, Acoustic Characteristics, and Examples, as Proposed by Southall et al. (2007)

Sound Type Acoustic Characteristics

(at source) Examples

Single Pulse

Single acoustic event; >3 dB difference 

between received level using impulse versus 

equivalent continuous time constant

Single explosion; sonic boom; single airgun, 

watergun, pile strike, or sparker pulse; single ping 

of certain sonars, depth sounders, and pingers

Multiple Pulse

Multiple discrete acoustic events within 

24 hr; >3 dB difference between received 

level using impulse versus equivalent 

continuous time constant

Serial explosions; sequential airgun, watergun, 

pile strikes, or sparker pulses; certain active sonar 

(IMAPS); some depth sounder signals

Non-Pulse

Single or multiple discrete acoustic events 

within 24 h; <3 dB difference between 

received level using impulse versus 

equivalent continuous time constant

Vessel/aircraft passes, drilling; many construction 

or other industrial operations; certain sonar 

systems (LFA; tactical mid-frequency); acoustic 

harassment/deterrent devises; acoustic 

tomography sources (ATOC); some depth 

sounder signals

ATOC = Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate; IMAPS = Integrated Marine Mammal Monitoring and 

Protection System; LFA = Low-Frequency Active.
H-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Additionally, the potential for hearing and behavioral effects for noise exposures of these different 

categories was assessed for each of the different functional hearing groups according to a wider and more 

applicable set of acoustic exposure metrics. Using an alternate threshold such as sound energy (sound 

exposure level, or SEL) that incorporates amplitude level and duration as well as peak sound pressure into 

the noise metric is considered to be more biologically realistic. Consequently, Southall et al. (2007) 

suggest SEL thresholds for TTS onset and the predicted PTS-onset levels they estimated. As has been 

observed for humans (Kryter et al., 1996), recent work in marine mammals also demonstrates that TTS 

onset is not perfectly correlated with received SEL levels either; rather, duration appears to have a larger 

impact on TTS onset than predicted by SEL levels, and recovery time between noise exposure also has an 

impact on the levels of TTS (Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). At this point, SEL 

remains a better metric for the prediction of injury onset than rms, but with some demonstrated limitations 

similar to those observed in predicting TTS dependence on sounds of different exposure level and 

duration in terrestrial mammals; these threshold metrics will clearly need to be reevaluated regularly as 

new data are reported. For behavioral effects, the conventional rms levels for sound exposure were 

considered, in part because this is typically all of the information available regarding available studies. 

Derivation of TTS and PTS Criteria

Southall et al. (2007) estimated PTS-onset as noise exposures estimated to result in 40 dB of TTS for 

different sound types, using both a peak pressure and an SEL criterion; the SEL threshold is ultimately 

the functional criteria for most realistic exposure scenarios. For all cetacean functional hearing groups, 

estimated TTS onset levels for both impulse and non-impulse noise were based on data obtained in a few 

individuals of two mid-frequency species (bottlenose dolphins and belugas). For pinnipeds, some data 

were available on non-impulsive noise but extrapolations to PTS-onset for impulsive noise (such as that 

associated with seismic airguns) also included extrapolations involving data from bottlenose 

dolphins. The SEL threshold for PTS-onset to impulse noise for mid-frequency cetacean species 

(198 dB re 1 μPa2

-s) and pinnipeds (186 dB re 1 μPa2-s) remain as valid (given the underlying 

assumptions) as when they were initially presented by Southall et al. (2007). However, subsequent data 

require some modification for other species groups.

For high-frequency cetaceans (e.g., harbor porpoises), subsequent data are available from Lucke et al. 

(2009). These data indicate lower TTS onset value both in terms of SEL and peak pressure. In this 

analysis, these directly relevant data form the basis for estimating TTS onset and potential for injury for 

harbor porpoise and other high-frequency cetaceans, rather than the extrapolated predictions of Southall et 

al. (2007). A PTS-onset threshold of 179 dB re 1 μPa2

-s is used for this functional hearing group, based 

on Lucke et al. (2009) TTS-onset levels and the Southall et al. (2007) extrapolation procedure to PTS.

An additional consideration regards the assessment of potential auditory effects of impulse noise on 

low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes). In the absence of direct measurements of hearing or noise impacts 

in any mysticete species, subsequent data on TTS in other cetaceans calls into question the hearing group 

extrapolation of results proposed by Southall et al. (2007). Specifically, Finneran and Schlundt (2010) 

recently demonstrated a greater sensitivity to non-impulse noise exposure for mid-frequency cetaceans at 

higher frequencies (within their region of best sensitivity) than had been tested when the Southall et al. 

(2007) criteria were published. Given the measurements of lower TTS onset values in the region of best 

hearing sensitivity for mid-frequency cetaceans and the low-frequency nature of seismic airgun impulses,

a more conservative extrapolation of results to low-frequency cetaceans was considered justified 

(see Southall et al,. 2007). For reasons relating to the much higher natural ambient background levels at 

low frequencies and presumed adaptations in basic hearing capabilities of these species than for other 

cetacean species (Wartzok and Ketten, 1999), rather than a direct application of the high-frequency 

cetacean TTS-onset values, a more conservative extrapolation of the mid-frequency TTS onset data for 

impulse noise than that proposed by Southall et al. (2007) was applied by subtracting 6 dB (which is 

halving the magnitude in terms of sound pressure) from the original Southall et al. (2007) level, for a 

resulting PTS-onset threshold for mysticetes of 192 dB re 1 μPa2

-s (Wood et al., 2012).

As described briefly above, Southall et al. (2007) proposed explicit and numerical exposure level 

values for injury from sound exposure for each of the marine mammal functional hearing groups. Using 

measured onset-TTS levels where possible (or extrapolating them from related species where not) and a 

series of extrapolation procedures to estimate the growth of TTS and a reasonably conservative estimate 

of physical injury (40 dB TTS as described above), received level threshold values were determined. For 
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-13

sound exposure level values, the frequency weighting functions described above would be applied to the 

received sound to account for differential frequency sensitivity among the different marine mammal 

groups. The resulting thresholds for injury from sound exposure for different marine mammal groups, via 

these general methods and using all available relevant data as proposed by Southall et al. (2007), are 

summarized in Table H-3. 

Table H-3 

 

Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria for Injury for Different Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups

Proposed by Southall et al. (2007)

Marine Mammal Group Sound Type

Single Pulses Multiple Pulses Non-Pulses

Low-frequency Cetaceans Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3

Sound Pressure Level 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat)

Sound Exposure Level 198 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mlf) 198 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mlf) 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mlf)

Mid-frequency Cetaceans Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6

Sound Pressure Level 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat)

Sound Exposure Level 198 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mmf) 198 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mmf) 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mmf)

High-frequency Cetaceans Cell 7 Cell 8 Cell 9

Sound Pressure Level 230 dBpeak re 1μPa (flat) 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) 230 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat)

Sound Exposure Level 198 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mhf) 198 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mhf) 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mhf)

Pinnipeds (in water) Cell 10 Cell 11 Cell 12

Sound Pressure Level 218 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) 218 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) 218 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat)

Sound Exposure Level 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mpw) 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mpw) 203 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mpw)

Pinnipeds (in air) Cell 13 Cell 14 Cell 15

Sound Pressure Level 149 dBpeak re 20 μPa (flat) 149 dBpeak re 20 μPa (flat) 149 dBpeak re 20 μPa (flat)

Sound Exposure Level 144 dB re (20 μPa)2-s (Mpa) 144 dB re (20 μPa)2-s (Mpa) 144.5 dB re (20 μPa)2-s (Mpa)

Several notable features of these criteria are the relatively high received level values predicted 

necessary to induce injury and that all of the cetaceans have numerically identical threshold values, with 

the exception of the frequency-weighting functions. The former is simply a function of the relatively high 

TTS-onset values in the marine mammal species tested thus far. The latter is the case because at the time 

of the Southall et al. (2007) criteria paper, there were no direct data on auditory fatigue in low- or 

high-frequency cetaceans, and the mid-frequency cetacean TTS-onset levels were used for these other 

groups. Subsequently, the Lucke et al. (2009) results have shown significantly lower onset values for 

TTS in high-frequency cetaceans; these will presumably be applied for these species. 

There are no direct measurements of TTS/PTS in low-frequency mysticetes (baleen whales), given 

our inability to test their hearing in the wild. Some TTS data for mid-frequency cetaceans in regions of 

best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2010) may be applicable in considering the appropriate 

TTS-onset value to extrapolate to the mysticetes, which are highly unlikely to test in a controlled hearing 

study to measure auditory fatigure. Gedamke et al. (2011) modeled the potential for TTS onset for baleen 

whales. Their model does suggest that TTS (and possibly PTS) onset from seismic surveys is plausible 

over ranges of several kilometers, however the uncertainty of the inputs to the model (i.e., the 

extrapolations of noise impacts and hearing in other species) as well as individual variation can have a 

large impact on the estimates, which must at this point be considered speculative (as the authors 

themselves state). In addition, much of the cumulative SEL is due to the loudest airgun pulses when the 

animal is closest to the airgun array. 

Newer TTS measurements in mid- and high-frequency cetaceans (Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; 

Finneran et al., 2010a,b) will require reanalysis of the appropriate TTS-onset (and thus injury onset) point 

for this category as well. For example, onset of TTS from pulsed watergun/airgun noise has been tested 

in three species of cetaceans. Finneran et al. (2002) exposed a beluga whale and bottlenose dolphin to 

watergun noise. The beluga showed TTS onset at 186 dB re 1 μPa2

·s (equivalent to 183 dB M-weighted), 

however the dolphin did not show indication of TTS at the levels this experiment was able to produce. 

The level for the beluga was therefore used in the initial Southall et al. (2007) threshold for all cetaceans 
H-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

(198 = 183 + 15). However, Lucke et al. (2009) found a TTS onset in a harbor porpoise exposed to 

airgun noise at 164 dB re 1 μPa2

·s, considerably lower than reported by Finneran et al. (2002) for belugas. 

Whether this difference is due to species or individual difference or a combination of the two is difficult 

to say. Onset of TTS in pinnipeds in water has been tested for several species (e.g., Kastak et al., 2005), 

but only with non-pulsed sounds (Southall et al., 2007). As a result, Southall et al. (2007) used the 

relationship between TTS onset from non-pulsed sounds in belugas and harbor seals (~12 dB) to estimate 

TTS onset levels for pinnipeds in water exposed to pulsed sounds. 

Such improvements based on additional data were envisioned, and in most cases specifically called 

for in terms of experimental approaches and priorities, and the conclusions and threshold values will 

continue to evolve over time. Despite the expected requisite re-thinking based on new data, the Southall 

et al. (2007) approach to marine mammal noise exposure represented a major evolution in the complexity 

and scientific basis for predicting the effects of noise on hearing in marine mammals over the extremely 

simplistic historical NMFS thresholds for injury.

Derivation of Behavioral Effects Criteria

In terms of behavioral impacts, the Southall et al. (2007) noise exposure criteria took a dual approach 

depending on the sound type. For exposure to single impulses (e.g., explosion), the acoustic component 

of the event was considered sufficiently intense to constitute behavioral harassment at levels consistent 

with TTS onset (Table H-4). The logic for this was that since these events are so brief and transient that 

any responses other than those affecting hearing would likely be similarly transient in nature and thus not 

affect the long-term health or fitness of animals. It was noted, however, that startle responses can trigger 

stress and other physiological responses, the biological significance of which remains poorly understood.

Table H-4 

 

Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria for Behavior for Different Marine Mammal 

Functional Hearing Groups Proposed by Southall et al. (2007)

Marine Mammal Group Sound Type

Single Pulses Multiple Pulses Non-Pulses

Low-frequency Cetaceans Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3

Sound Pressure Level 224 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) see Tables 6 & 7 in 

Southall et al., 2007

see Tables 14 & 15 in 

Southall et al., 2007

Sound Exposure Level 183 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mlf) Not applicable Not applicable

Mid-frequency Cetaceans Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6

Sound Pressure Level 224 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) see Tables 8 & 9 in 

Southall et al., 2007

see Tables 16 & 17 in 

Southall et al., 2007

Sound Exposure Level 183 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mmf) Not applicable Not applicable

High-frequency Cetaceans Cell 7 Cell 8 Cell 9

Sound Pressure Level 224 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) see Tables 18 & 19 in 

Southall et al., 2007

see Tables 18 & 19 in 

Southall et al., 2007

Sound Exposure Level 183 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mhf) Not applicable Not applicable

Pinnipeds (in water) Cell 10 Cell 11 Cell 12

Sound Pressure Level 212 dBpeak re 1 μPa (flat) see Tables 10 & 11 in 

Southall et al., 2007

see Tables 20 & 21 in 

Southall et al., 2007

Sound Exposure Level 171 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Mpw) Not applicable Not applicable

Pinnipeds (in air) Cell 13 Cell 14 Cell 15

Sound Pressure Level 109 dBpeak re 20 μPa (flat) see Tables 12 & 13 in 

Southall et al., 2007

see Tables 22 & 23 in 

Southall et al., 2007

Sound Exposure Level 100 dB re (20 μPa)2-s (Mpa) Not applicable Not applicable

For all other sound types (which are the majority), Southall et al. (2007) did not propose explicit 

threshold criteria, for the reasons of context-dependence and other complexities in the nature of 

behavioral responses and available literature described above. It was concluded that significant 

behavioral effects would likely occur at exposure levels below those required for TTS and PTS, but that 

simple step-function thresholds for behavior (such as the historical NMFS values) were simply 

inconsistent with the best available science. While an overarching exposure level approach for behavior 

as seems reasonable for injury is perhaps more convenient from an assessment standpoint, the underlying 
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-15

reasons behind the type and magnitude of behavioral response involve a multitude of factors and require a 

multivariate assessment method to adequately describe. 

Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the available marine mammal literature and proposed a severity 

scaling for behavioral response applied to the available data, but did not present explicit step-function 

thresholds for behavioral response. This was because of the lack of convergence in the data on 

broadly-applicable exposure levels resulting in significant behavioral responses.

The Southall et al. (2007) severity scaling attempted for the first time to put some reasonable bounds 

on the likely significance of observed responses, highlighting the importance of responses with the 

potential to affect vital rates and survivorship (as in NRC, 2005). An ordinal ranking of behavioral 

response severity (see Table 4 in Southall et al., 2007) was developed, the intent being to delineate 

behaviors that are relatively minor and/or brief from those considered more likely to affect these vital 

rates. The observed behavioral responses in all 10 conditions for multiple pulses and continuous noise for 

each of the five functional hearing groups were reviewed in detail, and individual responses were assessed 

according to this severity scaling and measured or reasonably estimated exposure levels. An example of 

this severity scaling of the observed behavioral literature in one of these conditions (low-frequency 

cetaceans exposed to impulse noise, predominantly airguns) that may be particularly relevant to this 

assessment is shown in Table H-5. Blank cells in this table indicate the lack of measured responses for 

these received sound levels and response categories; an overarching conclusion of Southall et al. (2007) 

was the striking lack of data in most exposure conditions for marine mammals.

This severity scaling, as evident in Table H-5, did not reveal broadly applicable patterns of response 

in most cases – i.e., where no response occurs below some specific received level and a high probability 

of response occurs above some point (as step-functions would presume). Certain observations were 

made, including the behavioral context-dependence of response for different received levels in migrating 

bowhead whales and the particular sensitivity of harbor porpoises both in field and laboratory 

experiments. But the primary advances made in the Southall et al. (2007) criteria in terms of behavioral 

response were to very clearly demonstrate that step-function thresholds for response using a single 

received level and no other considerations related to behavioral context are overly simplistic and outdated 

and to develop at least a qualitative means of addressing behavioral response severity issues. 

The Southall et al. (2007) review found that contextual factors of sound exposure relating to different 

animal groups, sound types, and exposure conditions and differing activity states complicate efforts to 

derive simple step-function thresholds for all species. The approach proposed was to make efforts to 

account for both species and contextual differences. That approach has been adapted for this analysis. 

For the majority of marine mammal species, a method similar to the NMFS step-function threshold 

(160 dB re 1 μPa (rms)) for impulse noise is used. As reviewed in detail in Appendix II (”Studies 

Involving Marine Mammal Behavioral Responses to Multiple Pulses”) of Southall et al. (2007), most 

marine mammals exposed to impulse noise demonstrate responses of varying magnitude in the 

140-180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) exposure range, including the mysticetes in the Malme et al. (1983, 1984) 

studies on which the NMFS threshold is based. Potential disturbance levels at SPL above 

140 dB re 1 μPa (rms) were also highlighted in HESS (1999). For the current assessment, a probabilistic 

metric is applied at which 10, 50, and 90 percent of individuals exposed are assumed to produce a 

behavioral response at exposures of 140, 160, and 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively. One final 

difference is that frequency weighting curves (the M-weighting of Southall et al. [2007]) is applied to 

these exposure estimates.

As noted by Southall et al. (2007) and supported by subsequent data, certain marine mammal species 

and certain marine mammals in specific behavioral modes appear to be significantly more sensitive to 

noise exposure. For instance, migrating bowhead whales are much more likely than other mysticetes 

(including feeding bowhead whales) to respond clearly to seismic airgun noise at much lower 

(~120-140 dB re 1 μPa (rms)) received sound levels (Richardson et al., 1999). As a protective approach 

for this behavioral state, 10, 50, and 90 percent response probability for migrating mysticetes is estimated 

to occur at M-weighted exposure levels of 120, 140, and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively.
H-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table H-5 

 

Southall et al. (2007) Assessment of Individual Behavioral Responses of Low-Frequency Cetaceans to 

Multiple-Pulse Exposure for Various Received Levels

(Individual observations are weighted to account for statistical considerations, and source data are indicated by 

parenthetical subscript: Malme et al. (1983)1

; Malme et al. (1984)2; Richardson et al. (1986)3; Ljungblad et al. 

(1988)4

; Todd et al. (1996)5; McCauley et al. (1998)6; Richardson et al. (1999)7; and Miller et al. (2005))8

Response

Score

Received Exposure Level (dBrms re 1 μPa)

80 to

<90

90 to

<100

100 to 

<110

110 to

<120

120 to

<130

130 to

<140

140 to

<150

150 to 

<160

160 to

<170

170 to

<180

180 to

<190

190 to

<200

9

8

7 1

(6) 

6 9.5

(3,7) 

47.4

(3,7)

2.2

(3,7)

1.4

(4)

2

(1,2)

5.5

(1,2,4,6)

9.3

(1,2,4,6,8)

5 1

(3,7)

1

(4)

1

(1,2)

4

3 1

(1,2)

1

(1,2)

2

1 5

(3,7)

6

(3,7)

1

(3,7)

2

(1,2)

3

(5)

0 59.8

(3,7)

17.7

(3,7)

1.1

(3,7,8)

0.1

(8)

0.1

(8)

6.8

(1,2,8)

6.3

(1,2,8)

Finally, certain species including harbor porpoises and beaked whales appear to have a categorically

different level of response than other marine mammals to much lower received levels. As reviewed in 

Southall et al. (2007), for harbor porpoises this appears to be consistent across sound types and laboratory 

and field settings. As recently demonstrated by Tyack et al. (2011), beaked whales appear to share this 

particular sensitivity, which may in part explain their disproportionate representation in marine mammal 

stranding events associated with sound exposure. Based on the initial assessment of Southall et al. (2007) 

and considering the more recent supporting evidence for beaked whales specifically, a particularly 

sensitive behavioral response category for these species and porpoises is assessed here. NMFS also 

recognizes species and contextual factors in setting behavioral response thresholds, the most obvious 

being the use of a 120 dB re 1 μPa threshold for behavioral response of harbor porpoise to Navy acoustic 

sources with a wide range of activities (U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2008). Thus, for these species groups, 

independent of behavioral state, 50 and 90 percent behavioral response probabilities are calculated for 

M-weighted exposure levels of 120 and 140 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively. The 10 percent probability 

was not modeled in this case, but the 50 percent criterion is used as a step function.

Table H-6 provides a summary of the Injury SEL thresholds used for the Wood et al. (2012) 

technical report to estimate Level A takes and compares these thresholds with those published in Southall 

et al. (2007). Only low frequency and high frequency cetacean thresholds change. Table H-7 provides a 

synopsis of the thresholds and the probability of a Level B behavioral response. Probabilities are not 

additive and reflect single points on a theoretical response curve.
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-17

Table H-6 

 

Modified Injury Sound Exposure Level (SEL) Thresholds for Multiple Pulses Used in This Analysis and Those 

Originally Proposed by Southall et al. (2007) to Estimate Onset of Acoustic Injury (Level A - PTS)

Marine Mammal Group

Injury SEL Thresholds 

Used in This Analysis

(dB re 1 μPa2-s)

Southall et al. (2007) –

Published SEL

(dB re 1 μPa2-s)

Low-frequency cetacean 192 198

Mid-frequency cetacean 198 198

High-frequency cetacean 179 198

Pinniped (in water) 186 186

Table H-7 

 

Probabilistic Disturbance rms Sound Pressure Level Thresholds (M-Weighted) Used in the Current Analysis to 

Predict a Level B Behavioral Response 

(For comparison, the NMFS threshold for behavioral response for all marine mammals is 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms, unweighted). Probabilities are not additive and reflect single points on a theoretical response curve.)

Marine Mammal Group

Probabilistic Disturbance rms Thresholds

M-Weighted dB re 1 μPa (rms)

120 140 160 180

Behavioral Response Probability

Porpoises/beaked whales 50% 90%

Migrating mysticete whales 10% 50% 90%

All other species/behaviors 10% 50% 90%

Note: Behavior Response Probability is based on low (10%), moderate (50%), and high (90%) categories of probability for 

different response levels in different contexts

Clearly, the Southall et al. (2007) criteria for behavior are a starting point to develop a rudimentary 

framework in moving toward a more multivariate and biologically-meaningful way of assessing the type 

and magnitude of behavioral responses of marine mammals to noise than historical thresholds. As 

evidenced by the absence of data in many exposure level and response types above, significant data gaps 

exist in almost all areas, and many of the available studies lack key information about the nature of 

exposure in which behavioral responses were observed (which is why many studies were excluded from 

the Southall et al. [2007] analysis). This is an active area of research, and subsequent studies (some 

described above) have begun to report additional information on background noise, various exposure 

metrics, and behavioral contexts. 

Broad application of the Southall et al. (2007) criteria for both injury and behavior has been relatively 

slow in evolving, in part due to the increased complexity of the recommendations over the previous 

simplistic approaches, such as step-functions used by NMFS. However, NMFS has used exposure criteria 

consistent with the Southall et al. (2007) thresholds for injury from sound exposure for assessing potential 

impacts of Navy active sonar operations (Federal Register, 2009a,b) for a host of species, including large 

whales and pinnipeds. In fact, these regulations actually include higher exposure values for certain 

species for which higher TTS onset values were directly measured than the more conservative values used 

in Southall et al. (2007). Additionally, recent NMFS regulations (Federal Register, 2009a,b) have also 

begun to use a more graduated dose-function based approach to behavioral response rather than the 

historical step-function thresholds. NMFS is preparing acoustic exposure guidelines that are expected to 

increasingly consider the increased complexity and context-dependence of responses of marine mammals 

to sound. 
H-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

6. ASSESSMENT OF HEARING INFORMATION FOR SPECIES/

GROUPS IN THE AREA OF INTEREST

Specific sound sources that will be used in G&G exploration activities off the U.S. East Coast, as 

discussed in Chapter 3.0 of the Programmatic EIS, include both impulsive (e.g., 2D and 3D seismic 

exploration surveys using conventional airguns) and continuous noise sources such as side-scan sonars, 

sediment sampling, electromagnetic surveys, and various vessel activities. 

Most of the marine mammals likely to be present in the Area of Interest (AOI), as discussed in 

Programmatic EIS Chapter 4.2.2, are cetaceans, with some pinnipeds possibly present at very low 

densities in the northern extent of the area and manatees potentially present in southern, near-coastal 

waters. For some of these species (e.g., bottlenose dolphins), relatively good information exists about 

hearing and behavioral responses to some types of sounds (e.g., Nowacek et al., 2001), though not 

particularly for seismic exploration specifically. 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 are available as well (e.g., Miller et al., 2009). 

For West Indian manatees, direct measurements of hearing are available (Gerstein et al., 1999; Mann 

et al., 2005), as well as responses to vessel presence and noise (Nowacek et al., 2004a). From the 

perspective of hearing injury, the use of pinniped exposure criteria from the Southall et al. (2007) criteria 

would seem reasonable, as described above. These animals are generally very coastal-oriented, which 

would likely mean they would encounter G&G activities only in nearshore waters. 

For the endangered mysticetes that occur in the area (North Atlantic right whale, blue whale, fin 

whale, humpback whale, and sei whale), as for all low-frequency cetaceans, no direct information 

regarding hearing is available. 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). 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. 

(2004b) showed that North Atlantic right whales 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, the increased sensitivity of some other mysticetes (e.g., bowhead and gray whales) 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).

7. REFERENCES CITED

Au, W.W.L. 1993. The sonar of dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Au, W.W.L., A.A. Pack, M.O. Lammers, L.M. Herman, M.H. Deakos, and K. Andrews. 2006. Acoustic 

properties of humpback whale songs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120:1103-1110.

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.

Bejder, L. and D. Lusseau. 2008. Valuable lessons from studies evaluating impacts of cetacean watch 

tourism. Bioacoustics 17:158-161.

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead, H. Finn, and S. Allen. 2009. Impact assessment research: use 

and misuse of habituation, sensitization 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 August 5, 2011.
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-19

Busch, D.S. and L.S. Hayward. 2009. Stress in a conservation context: A discussion of glucocorticoid 

actions and how levels change with conservation-relevant variables. Biological Conservation 

142:2844-2853.

Carretta, J.V., J. Barlow, and L. Enriquez. 2008. Acoustic pingers eliminate beaked whale bycatch in a 

gill net fishery. Marine Mammal Science 24:956-961. 

Clark, C.W. 1990. Acoustic behavior of mysticete whales, pp. 571-583. In: Thomas, J. and 

R. Kastelein, eds. Sensory abilities of cetaceans. Plenum Press. 

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, pp. 564-582. In: 

Thomas, J., C. Moss, and M. Vater, eds. Echolocation in bats and dolphins. The University of 

Chicago Press.

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 August 5, 2011.

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, R. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, 

R. Gisiner, J. Mead, and L. Benner. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on 

beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7:177-187.

Cranford, T.W., M.F. McKenna, M.S. Soldevilla, S.M. Wiggins, J.A. Goldbogen, R.E. Shadwick, 

P. Krysl, J.A. St. Leger, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2008a. Anatomic geometry of sound transmission and 

reception in Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris). Anat. Rec. 291:353-378.

Cranford, T. W.P. Krysl, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2008b. Acoustic pathways revealed: simulated sound 

transmission and reception in Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris). Bioinsp. Biomim. 

3:016001 (10pp). Internet website: http://spermwhale.org/SDSU/My%20Work/Cranford_et_al_

Sound_Paths_FEM_BB_2008.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Cudahy, E. and W. Ellison. 2002. A review of the potential for in vivo tissue damage by exposure to 

underwater sound. Groton, CT: Naval Submarine Medical Research Library.

Federal Register. 2003. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; 

Oceanographic surveys in the Hess Deep, Eastern Equatorial Pacific Ocean. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 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. 

Federal Register. 2009a. Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Hawaii 

Range Complex. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. January 12, 2009. 74 FR 7, pp. 1456-1491. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-01-12/pdf/E9-37.pdf

Federal Register. 2009b. Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy training in the Southern 

California Range Complex. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. January 21, 2009. 74 FR 12, pp. 3882-3918. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-01-21/pdf/E9-1073.pdf

Fernández, A., J.F. Edwards, F. Rodríguez, A. Espinosa De Los Monteros, P. Herráez, P. Castor, 

J.R. Jaber, V. Martín, and M. Arbelo. 2005. “Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome” involving a mass 

stranding of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Veterinary 

Pathology 42:446-457.
H-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2010. Frequency-dependent and longitudinal changes in noise-induced 

hearing loss in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 128:567-570.

Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.W. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in 

masked hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a 

seismic watergun. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(6):2929.

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.

Frankel, A.S. 2005. Gray whales hear and respond to a 21-25 kHz high-frequency whale-finding sonar, 

p. 97. In: Proceedings 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Diego, 

California, 12-16 December 2005. 

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.

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. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 129(1):496-506.

Gilles, A., M. Scheidat, and U. Siebert. 2009. Seasonal distribution of harbour porpoises and possible 

interference of offshore wind farms in the German North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

383:295-307.

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.

Henderson, D., B. Hu, and E. Bielefeld. 2008. Patterns and mechanisms of noise-induced cochlear 

pathology, pp. 195-217. In: Schacht, J., A.N. Popper, and R.R Fay, eds. Auditory trauma, 

protection, and repair. New York: Springer. 

High Energy Seismic Survey (HESS). 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. Camarillo, California: High Energy Seismic Survey Team.

Hildebrand, J.A. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 139:5-20. Internet website: http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/

m395p005.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Holt, M.M., D.P. Noren, V. Veirs, C.K. Emmons, and S. Veirs. 2009. Speaking up: Killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer.

125:EL27-EL32. Internet website: http://www.beamreach.org/wiki/images/d/d2/JAS00EL27.pdf. 

Accessed August 5, 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 27:82-91.

Jepson, P.D., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, 

P. Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, F. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, 

A.A. Cunningham, and A. Fernández. 2003. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans. Nature 

425:575-576.
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-21

Kaatz, I.M. 2002. Multiple sound producing mechanisms in teleost fishes and hypotheses regarding their 

behavioural significance. Bioacoustics 12:230-233.

Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1998. Low-frequency amphibious hearing in pinnipeds: Methods, 

measurements, noise, and ecology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:2216-2228.

Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C.R. Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary threshold 

shift in pinnipeds: Effects of noise level and duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 118(5):3154-3163.

Kastak, D., J. Mulsow, A. Ghoul, and C. Reichmuth. 2008. Noise-induced permanent threshold shift in a 

harbor seal. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123:2986.

Kastelein, R.A., W.C. Verboom, N. Jennings, and D. de Haan. 2008a. Behavioral avoidance threshold 

level of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone. J. Acoust. Soc. 

Amer. 123:1858-1861. 

Kastelein, R.A., L. Hoek, and C.A.F. de Jong. 2008b. Hearing thresholds of a harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) for sweeps (1-2 kHz and 6-7 kHz bands) mimicking naval sonar signals. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 129:3393-3399.

Ketten, D.R., S. Cramer, and J. Arruda. 2007. A manual for the removal, fixation, and preservation of 

cetacean ears. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. 

Kryter, K.D. 1994. The handbook of hearing and the effects of noise. New York: Academic Press. 

673 pp. 

Kryter, K. D., W.D. Ward, J.D. Miller, and D.H. Eldredge. 1966. Hazardous exposure to intermittent 

and steady-state noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39(3):451-464.

Ladich, F., and H.Y. Yan, 1998. Correlation between auditory sensitivity and vocalization in anabantoid 

fishes. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 182(6):737-746.

Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral 

responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41:183-194. Internet website: http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/

index.php/arctic/article/download/1717/1696. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Lucke, K., U. Siebert, P.A. Lepper, and M-A. Blachet. 2009. Temporary shift in masked hearing 

thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125:4060-4070. Internet website: http://

www.thecre.com/pdf/Lucke%20et%20al%20%202009.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Luther, D.A. and R.H. Wiley. 2009. Production and perception of communicatory signals in a noisy 

environment. Biology Letters 5:183-187. Internet website: http://www.unc.edu/home/rhwiley/pdfs/

LutherWiley2009.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Madsen, P., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack. 2006. Wind turbine underwater noise 

and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 309:279-295.

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. 

Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA: BBN Rep. 5366. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. NTIS Accession No. 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. Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA: BBN Report 

No. 5586. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Internet website: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/1/1086.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.
H-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Mann, D.A., D.E. Colbert, J.C. Gaspard, B.M. Casper, M.L.H. Cook, R.L. Reep, and G.B. Bauer. 2005. 

Temporal resolution of the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) auditory system. 

J. Comparative Physiology 191(10):903-908. 

McCarthy, E., D. Moretti, L. Thomas, N. DiMarzio, R. Morrissey, S. Jarvis, J. Ward, A. Izzi, and 

A. Dilley. 2011. Changes in spatial and temporal distribution and vocal behavior of Blainville’s 

beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) during multiship exercises with mid-frequency sonar. Mar. 

Mamm. Sci. 27(3):E206-E226.

McCauley, R.D., M-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: Preliminary results of 

observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. Australian Petroleum 

Production and Exploration Association Journal 38:692-707.

Miksis, J.L., R.C. Connor, M.D. Grund, D.P. Nowacek, A.R. Solow, and P.L. Tyack. 2001. Cardiac 

response to acoustic playback experiments in the captive bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). 

Journal of Comparative Psychology 115:227-232.

Miller, G.W., J.D. Moulton, R.A. Davis, M. Holst, P. Millman, A. MacGillvray, and D. Hannay. 2005. 

Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals – southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, 

pp. 511-542. In: Armsworthy, S.L., P.J. Cranford, and K. Lee eds., Offshore oil and gas 

environmental effects monitoring/approaches and technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.

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 56:1168-1181. Internet website: http://www.marinebioacoustics.com/

files/2009/Miller_et_al_2009.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Montie, E.W., C.A. Manire, and D.A. Mann. 2011. Live CT imaging of sound reception anatomy and 

hearing measurements in the pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology 214:945-955.

Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, and S. Vlachos. 2009a. Sonar-induced temporary hearing loss in 

dolphins. Biology Letters 5:565-567. 

Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, S. Vlachos, and W.W.L. Au. 2009b. Predicting temporary 

threshold shifts in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): the effects of noise level and duration. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 125(3):1816-1826.

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: 

sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure. The Journal of Experimental Biology 

213:3748-3759. Internet website: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/213/21/3748.full.pdf. Accessed 

August 5, 2011.

Mulsow, J. and C. Reichmuth. 2010. Psychophysical and electrophysiological aerial audiograms of a 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 127:2692-2701. 

National Research Council. 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. The National Academies Press, 

Washington, DC. 

National Research Council. 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise: Determining when 

noise causes biologically significant events. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 

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.

Nowacek, S.M., R.S. Wells, E.C.G. Owen, T.R. Speakman, R.O. Flamm, and D.P. Nowacek. 2004a. 

Florida manatees, Trichechus manatus latirostris, respond to approaching vessels. Biological

Conservation 119:517-523. Internet website: http://ocean.fsu.edu/faculty/nowacek/nowacek_

biocons.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-23

Nowacek, D., M.P. Johnson and P.L. Tyack. 2004b. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. 

Biological Sciences 271:227-231. Internet website: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/

271/1536/227.full.pdf+html. Accessed August 5, 2011.

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.

Parks, S., D.R. Ketten, J.T. O’Malley, and J. Arruda. 2007. Anatomical predictions of hearing in the 

North Atlantic right whale. The Anatomical Record 290:734-744. Internet website: 

http://csi.whoi.edu/sites/default/files/literature/Full%20Text_9.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Payne, R. and D. Webb. 1971. Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in baleen whales. 

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 188:110-141.

Popper, A.N. and P.L. Edds-Walton. 1997. Bioacoustics of marine vertebrates, pp. 1831-1836. In: 

M.J. Crocker (ed.), Encyclopedia of Acoustics, Vol. IV. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

Reichmuth, C. 2007. Assessing the hearing capabilities of mysticete whales. A proposed research 

strategy for the Joint Industry Programme on Sound and Marine Life on 12 September. Internet 

website: http://www.soundandmarinelife.org/Site/Products/MysticeteHearingWhitePaperReichmuth.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

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, Jr. 1990. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena

mysticetus, to drilling and dredging noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine Environmental 

Research 29:135-160.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., J.S. Hanna, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, N.J. Patenaude, and 

M.A. Smultea. 1995. Acoustic effects of oil production activities on bowhead and white whales 

visible during spring migration near Pt. Barrow, Alaska-1991 and 1994 phases: Sound propagation 

and whale responses to playbacks of icebreaker noise. OCS Study MMS 95-0051.

Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales 

by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 106(4):2281. 

Ridgway, S. 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 5, 2011.

Romano, T.A., M.J. Keogh, C. Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, L., C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder, and J.J. Finneran. 

2004. Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune 

systems before and after intense sound exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

61:1124-1134. Internet website: https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/legacy-uploads/

documents/Romano_2004-1238105865-10173.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Saunders, J.C., S.P. Dear, and M.E. Schneider. 1985. The anatomical consequences of acoustic injury: 

A review and tutorial. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 78:833-860.

Schusterman, R.J. 1981. Behavioral capabilities of seals and sea lions: A review of their hearing, visual, 

learning, and diving skills. Psychological Record 31:125-143.

Schusterman, R.J., D. Kastak, D.H. Levenson, C.J. Reichmuth, and B.L. Southall. 2000. Why pinnipeds 

don’t echolocate. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107:2256-2264.
H-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Southall, B.L., R.J. Schusterman, D. Kastak, and C.R. Kastak. 2005. Reliability of underwater hearing 

thresholds in pinnipeds. Acoustic Research Letters Online 6(4):243-249. Internet website: 

http://sea-inc.net/assets/pdf/lrni_Southalletal_ARLO_hearingreliability_2005.pdf. Accessed August 

5, 2011.

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, 

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. 

Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 

33:411-521. Internet website: http://pinnipedlab.ucsc.edu/publications/pub_131_2007.pdf. 

Accessed August 5, 2011.

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).

Thomas, J.A., R.A. Kastelein, and F.T. Awbrey. 1990. Behavior and blood catecholamines of captive 

belugas during playbacks of noise from an oil drilling platform. Zoo Biology 9:393-402.

Thompson, P.M., D. Lusseau, T. Barton. D. Simmons, J. Rustin, and H. Bailey. 2010. Assessing the 

responses of coastal cetaceans to construction of offshore wind turbines. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 

60:1200-1208.

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. Internet website: http://csi.whoi.edu/sites/default/files/literature/Full%20Text_30.pdf. 

Accessed August 5, 2011.

Tyack, P.L. 1998. Acoustic communication under the sea, pp. 163-220. In: Hopp, S.L., M.J. Owren, 

and C.S. Evans eds. Animal acoustic communication. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Tyack, P.L., W.M.X. Zimmer, D. Moretti, B.L. Southall, D.E. Claridge, J.W. Durban, C.W. Clark, 

A. D’Amico, N. DiMarzio, S. Jarvis, E. McCarthy, R. Morrissey, J. Ward, and I.L. Boyd. 2011. 

Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual navy sonar. PLoS ONE 6(3):e17009. Internet 

website: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017009. Accessed August 5, 

2011.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2008. Final Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Range environmental 

impact statement (EIS)/overseas environmental impact statement (OEIS), December 2008.

Visser, F., K.L. Hartman, E.J.J. Rood, A.J.E. Hendriks, D.B. Zult, W.J. Wolff, J. Huisman, and 

G.J. Pierce. 2010. Risso’s dolphins alter daily resting pattern in response to whale watching at the 

Azores. Marine Mammal Science 27:366-381.

Ward, W.D. 1997. Effects of high-intensity sound, pp. 1497-1507. In: M.J. Crocker, ed. Encyclopedia 

of Acoustics Vol. III. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wartzok, D. and D.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine mammal sensory systems, pp. 117-175. In: Reynolds, II, 

J.E. and S.A. Rommel eds. Biology of marine mammals. Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington 

D.C.

Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal 37:6-15. 

Watkins, W.A. and D. Wartzok. 1985. Sensory biophysics of marine mammals. Marine Mammal 

Science 1:219-260.

Weir, C.R. 2008a. Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration 

off Angola. Aquatic Mammals 34(1):71-83. Internet website: http://www.ketosecology.co.uk/Weir

%282008%29_Seismic.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.
Marine Mammal Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts H-25

Weir, C.R. 2008b. Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) respond to an airgun 

ramp-up procedure off Gabon. Aquatic Mammals 34(3):349-354. Internet website: http://

www.ketosecology.co.uk/Weir%282008%29_SoftStart.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

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.

Wood, J., B.L. Southall, and D.J. Tollit. 2012. PG&E offshore 3-D Seismic Survey Project EIR – 

Marine Mammal Technical Draft Report. SMRU Ltd. 

Wright, A.J., N.A. Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, 

A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, 

L.S. Weilgart, B.A Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, and V. Martin. 2007a. Anthropogenic noise as 

a stressor in animals: A multidisciplinary perspective. International Journal of Comparative 

Psychology 20:250-273. Internet website: http://www.comparativepsychology.org/ijcp-vol20-2-3-

2007/14.Wright_etal_A_PDF.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Wright, A.J., N.A. Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, 

A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, 

L.S. Weilgart, B.A Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, and V. Martin. 2007b. Do marine mammals 

experience stress related to anthropogenic noise? International Journal of Comparative Psychology

20:274-316. Internet website: http://www.comparativepsychology.org/ijcp-vol20-2-3-2007/

15.Wright_etal_B_PDF.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

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.

Yost, W.A. 2000. Fundamentals of hearing: An introduction. New York: 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.

Zimmer, W.M.X. and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Repetitive shallow dives pose decompression risk in 

deep-diving beaked whales. Marine Mammal Science 23(4):888-925.

APPENDIX I 

 

SEA TURTLE HEARING AND

SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS

Sea Turtle Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts I-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. I-1

2. MORPHOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... I-1

3. ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO SOUND................................................................ I-2

4. BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO SOUND...................................................................................... I-3

5. EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE ..................................................................................... I-4

6. REFERENCES CITED...................................................................................................................... I-5

Sea Turtle Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts I-1 

1. INTRODUCTION

There is growing concern over anthropogenic sound in the world’s oceans and its potentially harmful 

effects on protected marine organisms, including sea turtles. Similar to other migratory marine species, 

sea turtles occupy different ecological niches throughout ontogeny, each characterized by unique acoustic 

conditions. Sea turtles spend the majority of their lives in the ocean; their only land-linked behaviors are 

egg deposition and hatching. Like many marine fishes and mammals, sea turtles use a range of habitats 

for each developmental stage (see review by Bolton, 2003). Once hatchlings reach the sea, they are 

pelagic, moving primarily with ocean currents. After a period of years, which varies both among species 

and populations, a critical ontogenetic habitat shift occurs whereby most sea turtles actively recruit to a 

demersal, neritic habitat and are considered juveniles. Finally, upon reaching maturity, all sea turtles 

maintain a discrete foraging area (this region frequently overlaps with the juveniles), migrating only to 

return to their natal nesting beach. The exception to this life history model in North Atlantic populations 

is the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Leatherbacks remain pelagic as both juveniles and 

adults and return to the neritic zone only for reproduction (Bolton, 2003).

Few studies have examined the role acoustic cues play in the ecology of sea turtles (Mrosovsky, 

1972; Samuel et al., 2005; Nunny et al., 2008). There is evidence that sea turtles may use sound to 

communicate; 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). We 

know very little about the extent to which sea turtles use their auditory environment (“soundscape”). 

However, the passive 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, recreational boating, and seismic surveys compound the potential for 

acoustic impact (Hildebrand, 2005).

2. MORPHOLOGY

Much of the research on the hearing capacity of sea turtles is limited to gross morphological 

dissections (Wever, 1978; Lenhardt et al., 1985). The tympanum is a continuation of the facial tissue and 

is distinguishable only by palpitation of the area. Beneath the tympanum is a thick layer of subtympanal 

fat (Figure I-1), a feature that distinguishes sea turtles from both terrestrial and semi-aquatic turtles. 

Recent imaging data suggests that this layer of fat is similar to the fats found in the jaws of odontocete 

whales and functions as a low-impedance channel for sounds to the ear (Ketten et al., 1999). The middle 

ear cavity lies posterior to the tympanum; the Eustachian tube connects the middle ear with the throat 

(Wever, 1978; Lenhardt et al., 1985). As with most turtles, the middle ear is small and encased by bone. 

The ossicular mechanism consists of two elements: the extracolumella and the columella (stapes). The 

extracolumella is a cartilaginous disk under the tympanic membrane attached to the columella by 

ligaments. The columella, a long rod with the majority of its mass concentrated at each end, extends 

medially from the middle ear cavity through a narrow bony channel and expands within the oval window 

to form a funnel shaped end. The columella is free to move only longitudinally within this channel so 

when the tympanum is depressed directly above the middle of the extracolumella, the columella moves 

readily in and out of the oval window, without any flexion of the columella. The stapes and oval window 

are connected to the saccular wall by fibrous strands. It is thought that these stapedo-saccular strands 

relay vibrational energy of the stapes to the saccule (Wever and Vernon, 1956; Wever, 1978; Lenhardt et 

al., 1985). For semi-aquatic turtles, the columella is the main pathway for sound input to the inner ear; 

when the columella is clipped while leaving the tympanum intact, the animal displayed an extreme 

decrease of sensitivity of hearing (Wever and Vernon, 1956). 
I-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure I-1. Middle Ear Anatomy of the Juvenile Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Moein, 1994).

The auditory sense organ within the inner ear of the sea turtle cochlea is the basilar papilla (basilar 

membrane). This membrane is large and composed of dense connective tissue in sea turtles (rather than a 

thin basilar membrane found in terrestrial turtles) (Wever, 1978; Hetherington, 2008). This basilar papilla

is positioned opposite the round window and lies within the pathway of fluid displacement due to 

columella motion. In most reptiles, and presumably in sea turtles as well, the tectorial membrane lays 

over the hair cells of the basilar papilla. For sea turtles, the innervations of the hair cells may be 

accomplished through the movement of the overlying tectorial membrane rather than the movement of the 

papillae (Hetherington, 2008). 

Based on the functional morphology of the ear, it appears that sea turtles receive sound through the 

standard vertebrate tympanic middle ear path. This ear, however, is adapted to underwater sound, not 

aerial. For the terrestrial vertebrate, the middle ear is an impedance transformer between sound in air 

(environment) and sound in fluid (inner ear). This impedance mismatch can be overcome by having a 

high convergence ratio between the tympanic membrane and oval window (thus amplifying the force 

acting on the inner ear) and by having a multiple bone ossicular mechanism that acts as a lever system to 

amplify force. The convergence ratio of the tympanic membrane to oval window in sea turtles is reported 

to be lower than other semi-aquatic turtles (Lenhardt et al., 1985), and sea turtles lack an osscicular 

mechanism that acts as a lever (having only a single straight columella). Thus, the sea turtle ear appears 

to be a poor receptor for aerial sounds. However, this ear is well adapted to water conduction sound. The 

dense layer of fat under the tympanum acts as a low-impedance channel for underwater sound (similar to 

that pathway found in odontocetes [Ketten et al., 1999]). Furthermore, the retention of air in the middle 

ear of these sea turtles suggests that they are able to detect sound pressures.

3. ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO SOUND

Electrophysiological studies on hearing have been conducted on juvenile green turtles (Chelonia 

mydas) (Ridgway et al., 1969; Bartol and Ketten, 2006), juvenile Kemp’s ridley turtles (Lepidochelys 

kempii) (Bartol and Ketten, 2006), juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) (Bartol et al., 1999; 
Sea Turtle Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts I-3 

Lavender et al., 2011, 2012), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) hatchlings (Dow Piniak et al., 

2012a). 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. The AEPs reflect the synchronous discharge of large populations of neurons within the 

auditory pathway and, thus, are useful monitors of the functioning of the throughput of the auditory 

system. Most AEP research has concentrated on the use of responses occurring within the first 10 ms 

following presentation of click or brief tone burst stimuli. This response has been termed the auditory 

brainstem response (ABR) and consists of a series of five to seven patterned and identifiable waves. 

Corwin et al. (1982) recorded AEPs from five classes of non-mammalian vertebrates (including the red 

eared turtle, Pseudemys scripta elegans) and found the response, recorded outside the brain, to be 

congruous with the criteria for “conventional” ABRs. Furthermore, these techniques are noninvasive and 

can be performed on conscious subject animals (Bullock, 1981; Corwin et al., 1982). 

Ridgway et al. (1969) measured auditory cochlear potentials of green turtles using both aerial and 

vibrational stimuli. Thresholds were not measured; instead, cochlear response curves of 0.1 μV potential 

were plotted for frequencies ranging from 50-2,000 Hz. 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. Vibratory stimuli were delivered directly to the dermal plates over the 

loggerhead turtle’s tympanum. 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 

after 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. For 

these experiments, the speaker was suspended in air while the turtle’s tympanum remained submerged 

underwater. 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. Interestingly, 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). 

Lavender et al. (2011, 2012) have recorded underwater AEPs using a Navy J9 underwater speaker from 

loggerhead turtles, their ages ranging from yearlings to subadults. Under these conditions, loggerheads 

were found to respond to frequencies between 50-1,000 Hz.

AEP responses from hatchling leatherback turtles showed that they 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., 2012a).

Dow Piniak et al. (2012b) recorded both in-air and in-water AEP responses from juvenile green 

turtles. The sea turtle AEP signal signature was similar to that seen in studies of fish evoked potentials, 

with a frequency-doubling response (i.e., where response waves oscillate at twice the stimulus frequency) 

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. 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 (e.g., drilling, low-frequency sonar). 

4. BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO SOUND

Multiple studies have attempted to examine the behavioral responses of juvenile loggerheads to sound 

in their natural environment, both in controlled settings (O’Hara and Wilcox, 1990; Moein et al., 1995; 

McCauley et al., 2000; Lavender et al., 2011) and as observed in situ (Holst et al., 2007; Weir, 2007; 

DeRuitter and Doukara, 2010). Behavioral audiograms have been collected from multiple size classes of 

loggerhead turtles (Lavender et al., 2011). Behavioral audiograms require the animal to perform a task in 

the presence of auditory stimuli; though time consuming (it can take months to train a turtle to sound), 
I-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

behavioral audiograms are a more sensitive measure of hearing threshold than electrophysiological 

responses and ascribe a critical behavioral component to hearing trials. Lavender et al. (2011) recorded 

audiograms using a two-response, forced-choice approach, whereby the turtles were required to vary 

behavior according to presence or absence of sound, permitting a behavioral measure of acoustic 

sensitivity. Lavender et al. (2011) have found that while loggerheads respond to similar frequencies as 

previous studies (50-1,000 Hz), their threshold levels are actually more sensitive than reported using 

electrophysiological methods. 

Several sea turtle behavioral studies have been initiated to assist in the development of an acoustic 

repelling device for sea turtles. O’Hara and Wilcox (1990) attempted to create a sound barrier for 

loggerhead turtles at the end of a canal using seismic airguns. The test results indicated that airguns were 

effective as a deterrent for a distance of about 30 m when the sound output of this system was 

approximately 220 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m in the 25-1,000 Hz range. However, this study did not account for 

the reflection of sound by the canal walls, and the stimulus frequency and intensity levels are ambiguous. 

Moein et al. (1995) investigated the use of airguns to repel juvenile loggerhead turtles from hopper 

dredges. A net enclosure was erected in the York River, Virginia to contain the turtles, and an airgun was 

stationed at each end of the net. Sound frequencies of the airguns ranged from 100-1,000 Hz at three 

decibel levels (175, 177, and 179 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m). Avoidance of the airguns was observed upon first 

exposure. However, after three separate exposures to the airguns, the turtles habituated to the stimuli. 

McCauley et al. (2000) examined the response of sea turtles (one green and one loggerhead turtle) to an 

airgun signal. For these trials, the turtles were placed in cages, and behavior was monitored as a single 

airgun approached and departed. During these trials, the turtles showed a noticeable increase in 

swimming behavior when the airgun level was above 166 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m and became erratic and 

increasingly agitated above 175 dB. Because these animals were caged, avoidance behavior could not be 

monitored. However, the researchers speculated that avoidance would occur at 175 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, 

the point at which the animals were acutely agitated (McCauley et al., 2000).

Researchers have also attempted to monitor sea turtle avoidance to sound during an active seismic 

survey (Weir, 2007; DeRuiter and Doukara, 2010). Weir (2007) observed 240 animals during a 10-month 

seismic survey off the coast of Angola. Behaviors were recorded at time of first sighting and as the vessel 

and towed equipment moved in relation to the turtle. Fewer turtles were observed near the airguns as they 

were firing (as opposed to the “gun-off” state). However, the source of agitation for the turtle could not 

be identified; the turtle could have reacted to the ship and towed equipment rather than specifically to the 

airgun (Weir, 2007). DeRuiter and Doukara (2010) observed turtles during active operation of an airgun 

array as well and found a startle response (rapid dive) to the airgun. However, again, these authors could 

not distinguish the stimulus source of the startle response as they did not perform a control with the 

airguns off (DeRuiter and Doukara, 2010).

5. EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE

There is growing concern over anthropogenic sound in the world’s oceans and the potentially harmful 

effect it has on protected marine organisms. Anthropogenic noises can originate from a multitude of 

sources, including (but not limited to) shipping traffic, seismic surveys for petroleum exploration, military 

sonar operations, pile driving, etc. These sounds have the potential to impact an animal in several ways: 

trauma to hearing (temporary or permanent), trauma to non-hearing tissue (barotraumas), alteration of 

behavior, and masking of biologically significant sounds (McCarthy, 2004).

Hearing damage is usually categorized as either a temporary or permanent injury. Temporary 

threshold shifts (TTS) are recoverable injuries to the hearing structure and can vary in intensity and 

duration. Normal hearing abilities return over time; however, animals often lack the ability to detect prey 

and predators and assess their environment during the recovery period. In contrast, permanent threshold 

shifts (PTS) are permanent loss of hearing through loss of sensory hair cells (Clark, 1991). Few studies 

have looked at hair cell damage in reptiles, and it is still unknown if sea turtles are able to regenerate hair 

cells (Warchol, 2011). There are almost no data on the effects of intense sounds on marine turtles and, 

thus, it is difficult to predict the level of damage to hearing structures. Clear avoidance reactions to 

seismic signals at levels between 166 and 179 dB re 1μPa have been observed (Moein et al., 1995;

McCauley et al., 2000); however, both of these studies were done in a caged environment, so the extent of 

avoidance could not be monitored. Moein et al. (1995) did observe a habituation effect to the airguns; the 
Sea Turtle Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts I-5 

animals stopped responding to the signal after three presentations. This lack of behavioral response could 

be a result of TTS or PTS.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) concludes that there is incomplete or unavailable 

information (40 CFR § 1502.22) about sea turtles that use the Area of Interest (AOI) with respect to their 

physiology and behavioral response to intense sounds. The available data and information about sea 

turtles using the AOI is reported to the best of our ability in this document. BOEM has used what 

scientifically credible information is available and applied it using accepted scientific methodologies. 

What is known about representative species, however, in combination with observation and interpretation 

of behavioral response to stimuli does allow some inferences to be drawn that allow reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts on sea turtles to be understood well enough so that mitigations 

can be designed to avoid or reduce them. 

BOEM has determined that incomplete or unavailable data or information on sea turtle physiology 

and behavioral response to intense sounds is adequate to understand reasonably foreseeable adverse 

impacts and is not essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, including the No Action 

alternative. 

Anthropogenic noises below injury level have the potential to mask relevant sounds in the animals’ 

environment. Masking sounds can interfere with the acquisition of prey or mate, the avoidance of 

predators, and, particularly in the case of sea turtles, identification of an appropriate nesting site (Nunny 

et al., 2008). Sea turtles appear to be low frequency specialists and, thus, the potential masking noises 

would fall within at least 50-1,000 Hz. These maskers could have diverse origins, ranging from natural to 

anthropogenic sounds (Hildebrand, 2005). The overall behavioral changes that can occur due to 

obscuration of sound scenery can have major ecological consequences for sea turtles. However, there are 

no quantitative data demonstrating masking effects for sea turtles.

Clearly, more research on the behavioral and physiological responses to sounds needs to be conducted

on sea turtles before appropriate noise exposure criteria can be developed for reduced fitness, injury, and 

death. While the research community is making progress in the frequency range of hearing for sea turtles, 

there are few data on hearing loss/damage, hair cell regeneration, masking, and behavioral responses. 

Inner ear research on hair cell population needs to be conducted on multiple species and multiple age 

classes by using histology/imaging techniques to analyze variations in auditory anatomy among stages 

and species. The critical point that noise disrupts scene analysis and masks signals should be explored 

and quantitative data on masking needs to be collected for sea turtles. When looking at behavioral 

responses, research beyond the “startle response” must be conducted. Controlled experiments in the 

natural environment need to be conducted to document and classify reactions to sound as either nuisance 

(i.e., causing the animal to move away, changing the animals’ behavior to another acceptable 

consequence) or injurious (i.e., preventing the animal from completing essential behavior). The results of 

these research studies could provide new data on the hearing ability and response to sound for sea turtles 

and a quantitative base for assessing potential impact of man-made sound sources on multiple species of 

sea turtles across habitats and developmental stages.

6. REFERENCES CITED

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 5, 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. 

Bolton, A.B. 2003. Variation in sea turtle life history patterns: Neritic vs. oceanic developmental stages. 

In: Lutz, P.L., J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken, eds. The biology of sea turtles, Vol. 2. Boca Raton, 

FL: CRC Press. Pp. 243-257. Internet website: http://accstr.ufl.edu/accstr-resources/publications/

Bolten_chapter9(CRC%20Press).pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Bullock, T.H. 1981. Neuroethology deserves more study of evoked responses. Neuroscience

6:1,203-1,215. 
I-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Clark, W.W. 1991. Recent studies of temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift 

(PTS) in animals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90(1):155-163.

Corwin, J.T., T.H. Bullock, and J. Schweitzer. 1982. The auditory brain stem response in five vertebrate 

classes. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 54(6):629-641.

DeRuitter, S.L. and K.L. Doukara. 2010. Loggerhead turtles dive in response to airgun sound exposure. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(3):1,726.

Dow Piniak, W.E., S.A. Eckert, C.A. Harms, and E.M. Stringer. 2012a. Underwater hearing sensitivity 

of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Assessing the potential effect of anthropogenic 

noise. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Headquarters, Herndon, VA. 

OCS Study BOEM 2012-01156. 35 pp.

Dow Piniak, W.E., D.A. Mann, S.A. Eckert, and C.A. Harms. 2012b. 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, Vol. 730. Springer. Pp. 83-87.

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. 

Hetherington, T. 2008. Comparative anatomy and function of hearing in aquatic amphibians, reptiles, 

and birds. In: J.G.M. Thewissen and S. Nummela, eds. Sensory evolution on the threshold: 

Adaptations in secondarily aquatic vertebrates. Berkeley: UC Press. Pp. 183-210. 

Hildebrand, J.A. 2005. Man-made noise. 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. Pp. 101-158. 

Holst, M., W.J. Richardson, W.R. Koski, M.A. Smultea, B. Haley, M.W. Fitzgerald, and M. Rawson. 

2007. Effects of large and small-source seismic surveys on marine mammals and sea turtles. 

American Geophysical Union, abstract #OS42A-01. Internet website: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/

2006AGUSMOS42A..01H. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Ketten, D.R., C. Merigo, E. Chiddick, and H. Krum. 1999. Acoustic fatheads: Parallel evolution of 

underwater sound reception mechanisms in dolphins, seals, turtles, and sea birds. J. Acoust. Soc. 

Am. 105:1,110.

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.

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: Springer. Pp. 89-92. 

Lenhardt, M.L., R.C. Klinger, and J.A. Musick. 1985. Marine turtle middle-ear anatomy. J. Aud. Res. 

25(1):66-72.

McCarthy, E. 2004. International regulation of underwater sound: Establishing rules and standards to 

address ocean noise pollution. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 287 pp.

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. 2000. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental 

implications. APPEA Journal 692-708. Internet website: http://www.anp.gov.br/meio/guias/sismica/

biblio/McCauleye2000.PDF. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Moein, S.M. 1994. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Master’s 

thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Internet website: http://

el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tessp/pdfs/Auditory%20Evoked%20Potentials_Thesis.pdf. Accessed 

August 5, 2011.
Sea Turtle Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts I-7 

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: Hales, L.Z., ed. Sea Turtle

Research Program: Summary Report. Technical Report CERC-95. Pp. 90-93. 

Mrosovsky, N. 1972. bSpectographs of the sounds of leatherback turtles. Herpetologica 29(3):256-258. 

Nunny, R., E. Graham, and S. Bass. 2008. Do sea turtles use acoustic cues when nesting? NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-582:83. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/

turtlesymposium2005.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

O’Hara, J. and J.R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low 

frequency sound. Copeia 2:564-567.

Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson. 1969. Hearing in the giant 

sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 64:884-890. Internet website: http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC223317/pdf/pnas00113-0080.pdf. Accessed August 5, 

2011.

Samuel, Y., S.J. Morreale, C.H. Greene, and M.E. Richmond. 2005. Underwater, low-frequency noise in 

coastal sea turtle habitat. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(3):1,465-1,472.

Warchol, M.E. 2011. Sensory regeneration in the vertebrate inner ear: Differences at the levels of cells 

and species. Hearing Research 273:72-79. 

Weir, C.R. 2007. Observations of marine turtles in relation to seismic airgun sound off Angola. Marine 

Turtle Newsletter 116:17-20. Internet website: http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/archives/mtn116/

mtn116p17.shtml. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Wever, E.G. 1978. The reptile ear: Its structure and function. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press. 

Wever, E.G. and J.A. Vernon. 1956. The sensitivity of the turtle’s ear as shown by its electrical 

potentials. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 42:213-220. Internet website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

articles/PMC528254/pdf/pnas00707-0043.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

APPENDIX J 

 

FISH HEARING AND SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS

FISH HEARING AND SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS

 

ATLANTIC G&G PROGRAMMATIC EIS

Prepared by:

Arthur N. Popper, Ph.D.

Environmental BioAcoustics LLC

Rockville, Maryland 20853

Prepared for:

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue

Stuart, Florida 34997

Under contract to:

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

381 Elden Street, MS 2100

Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817

Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ J-1

1.1. What is Injury for Fishes?........................................................................................................ J-1

1.2. Fish........................................................................................................................................... J-1

1.3. Fish Bioacoustics – Overview.................................................................................................. J-2

1.4. Metrics of Sound Exposure...................................................................................................... J-2

2.0. BACKGROUND ON FISH HEARING........................................................................................... J-3

2.1. Sound in Water ........................................................................................................................ J-3

2.2. Hearing Sensitivity................................................................................................................... J-4

2.3. Other Aspects of Fish Hearing................................................................................................. J-7

3.0. EFFECTS OF HUMAN-GENERATED SOUND ON FISHES – OVERVIEW ............................. J-8

4.0. EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOUNDS ON HEARING ...................................................... J-9

4.1. Auditory Masking .................................................................................................................... J-9

4.2. Temporary Threshold Shift.................................................................................................... J-10

4.3. Effects of High Intensity Sources on Hearing........................................................................ J-10

5.0. EFFECTS OF HIGH INTENSITY SOURCES.............................................................................. J-11

5.1. Non-Auditory Physiological Effects of Exposure to Intense Sounds.................................... J-11

5.2. Auditory Effects of Exposure to Intense Sounds................................................................... J-12

6.0. EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOUNDS ON BEHAVIOR ................................................. J-13

6.1. Fish Catch and Anthropogenic Sound.................................................................................... J-15

6.2. Other Behavioral Studies....................................................................................................... J-15

7.0. PRESSURE VS. PARTICLE MOTION......................................................................................... J-16

8.0. OTHER ISSUES WITH REGARD TO EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOUNDS .............. J-17

8.1. Stress...................................................................................................................................... J-17

8.2. Eggs and Larvae..................................................................................................................... J-17

8.3. Invertebrates........................................................................................................................... J-18

8.4. Vessel Noise and Fish............................................................................................................ J-20

9.0. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS – EFFECTS .................................................................................... J-20

9.1. Physiological Effects.............................................................................................................. J-20

9.2. Effects on Fish Behavior........................................................................................................ J-21

9.3. Increased Background Sound................................................................................................. J-21

10.0. CURRENT CRITERIA .................................................................................................................. J-22

11.0. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................... J-23

Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report considers the effects of human-generated (anthropogenic) sound on fishes, with particular 

reference to seismic airguns and sonars. However, since there are few data on the effects of any 

anthropogenic sources on fishes, much of the discussion will be based upon a wider range of sound 

sources, with a goal of some extrapolation to help inform potential effects from airguns and sonars. 

Emphasis will be placed upon peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature. However, gray literature 

reports of high scientific quality will be cited as appropriate.

It should be noted that this review will not be comprehensive. Readers interested in more extensive 

analysis of the effects of anthropogenic sounds on animals are referred to Popper (2003), Hastings (2008), 

Popper and Hastings (2009a), and Slabbekoorn et al. (2010) for general reviews and to Popper and 

Hastings (2009b), Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2012), and the papers in Popper and Hawkins (2012) for 

a more detailed overview.

1.1. WHAT IS INJURY FOR FISHES? 

A fundamental issue of concern with regard to fishes is what constitutes “injury.” As defined in the 

marine mammal literature (see Southall et al. [2007]) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, permanent 

hearing loss (or permanent threshold shift [PTS]) is considered injury. But, as discussed below, PTS is 

not likely to occur in fishes, and all evidence for temporary hearing loss (or temporary threshold shift 

[TTS]) shows that fishes recover quickly from this physiological effect. Thus, for the sake of this 

discussion addressing fish, “injury” will not include effects on hearing.

So, a question of importance is when “injury” starts in fishes and the nature of physiological effects 

that can lead to injury. Injury caused by changes in pressure is called barotrauma. Since sound is a 

pressure disturbance, physiological injury caused by sound is called barotrauma. In the very limited 

literature on interim criteria for regulation of exposure of fishes to pile driving sound (regulations have 

not be promulgated for other sound sources), the concern is for the onset of physiological effects

(barotrauma), but this is not clearly defined. In a recent series of peer-reviewed studies (Halvorsen et al., 

2011, 2012a,b; Casper et al., 2012a) on effects of pile driving sounds on several different species, it has 

been demonstrated that there are some effects resulting from exposure to sound that have the potential for 

impacting the survival of fishes (e.g., burst swim bladder, internal bleeding from ruptured veins), whereas 

other observed effects have no more impact on survival than does a small cut on the arm of a human 

(e.g., external bleeding at the base of fins).

Therefore, until a better definition of “injury” (i.e., criteria that identify the physiological effects and 

their severity at the onset of injury) is available and agreed upon for fishes, for the purposes of this report 

an injury will be defined as a physiological effect that leads to immediate or potential death. Given this 

definition of injury, behavioral effects, such as moving from a site of feeding, masking, or TTS, would 

not be considered an injury.

At the same time, it might ultimately be possible and worthwhile to attempt to define criteria for 

behavioral impacts. However, as discussed in the body of this report, there are no data currently available 

that provide guidance on this topic.

1.2. FISH

The term “fish” generally refers to three groups of vertebrates: (1) the Agnatha or jawless vertebrates; 

(2) the cartilaginous fishes; and (3) the bony fishes (see Nelson [2006]). The Agnatha are a small group 

of very ancient vertebrates that includes lamprey, and they will not be considered further. See Nelson 

(2006) for a complete review of fishes and their evolutionary relationships and www.fishbase.org for a 

listing of the more than 32,000 known living species. 

The cartilaginous fishes, or elasmobranchs, include sharks and rays and their relatives. Virtually 

nothing is known about effects of human-generated sound on cartilaginous fishes, but there is concern 

about potential effects since these animals are integral to the ecosystem in many parts of the marine 

environment (Casper et al., 2012b). 
J-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Bony fishes include most of the species of aquatic vertebrates, including the majority of the species of 

fishes that are consumed by humans1

. Unless otherwise stated, the term “fishes” in this report will refer 

to bony fishes. By convention, the word “fish” refers to one or more members of the same species, 

whereas “fishes” refers to multiple species.

1.3. FISH BIOACOUSTICS – OVERVIEW

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 is attenuated at a much lower rate than other forms of energy, 

such as light, and the lower frequencies important for communication and environmental sensing by 

fishes travel long distances while retaining their information content. Thus, fishes can glean a great deal 

of information about biotic (living) and abiotic (environmental) sources and get a good “image” of the 

environment at 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 fishes 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. Much more detailed discussions of all aspects 

of fish bioacoustics can be found in the papers in Webb et al. (2008) and in papers by Fay and 

Megela-Simmons (1999), Zelick et al. (1999), and Popper et al. (2003). A broad discussion of 

interactions of anthropogenic sounds and fishes can be found in Popper and Hastings (2009a,b) and in the 

papers in Popper and Hawkins (2012). 

In addition to hearing and behavior-related effects, sound can cause physiological injury (barotrauma) 

to many of the tissues in the body of a fish (Halvorsen et al., 2011). While generally not considered in 

discussion of bioacoustics, many of the same sounds that may cause bioacoustics effects may also cause 

barotrauma. This is particularly true of the impulsive sounds caused by pile driving and geophysical 

exploration sound sources. High-energy impulsive sounds can cause barotrauma by physiological 

responses to rapid decompression (Stephenson et al., 2010), and in the case of sound generated by 

in-water exposions, by tissue responses to percussion (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Barotrauma will be 

discussed further in following sections of this appendix.

1.4. METRICS OF SOUND EXPOSURE

Before discussing effects of anthropogenic sound on fishes, it is important to understand that, to date, 

it has not been possible to easily compare results from studies with different anthropogenic sources. In 

part, this is because of the fact that while different sources may be reasonably similar in average acoustic 

intensity, they have different spectral characteristics, duration, rise times, and other characteristics. In 

particular, peak pressure relative to the static pressure at the location of the fish, and rise time, which is 

the time from the onset of the signal to when it reaches the signal’s peak pressure, are important factors in 

the risk of barotrauma to fish from pressure changes in the signal. The maximum pressures, particularly 

maximum negative pressures relative to static pressure, determine the maximum change in volume of 

air-filled bodies within a fish. If the change is large, the risk of injury is high. If the rate of change in 

pressure is very slow, that may permit the fish, particularly physostomous species, to accommodate the 

change in volume of internal bodies such as the swim bladder with less risk of injury. However, for most 

impulsive signals from pile driving and seismic sources, the range of rise times is relatively small when 

the peak pressures are high enough to be a risk for injury.

The second issue in comparing results arises from the spectrum and time course of the signal and how 

these are described and calibrated. Until recently, most sound sources were described in terms of peak 

pressure and root-mean-square (rms) pressure. Peak pressure represents the maximum point of the energy 

in a signal whereas rms describes the average level of energy in the signal. The problem with both 

measures is that they do not give a good representation of the total energy in the signal over time – and it 

 

1 e.g., tuna, salmon, cod, herring, pollack, and many others.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-3

is this total energy that is likely to be the critical factor in determining potential effects on a receiver 

(Popper and Hastings, 2009b).

In comparing sounds such as sonars, seismic airgun arrays, and pile driving, there may be similarities 

in both peak and rms, but neither measure shows the actual differences in the total energy to which a 

receiver may be exposed. More recently, investigators have started to use a third measure, the Sound 

Exposure Level (SEL). SEL is a level expressed in decibels equal to the log-transformed integration of 

the square of the acoustic pressure over the duration of the signal (Popper and Hastings, 2009b) and is an 

index of the total acoustic energy received by an organism, representing the total energy in a signal or 

sequence of signals (see Popper and Hastings [2009b] for discussion of SEL and how it is calculated). 

SEL allows for a comparison between signals since it provides a measure of all energy present in a signal

and can also be used to estimate the sum of the energy in a sequence of signals, and it has, accordingly, 

been more and more accepted by investigators (e.g., Popper et al., 2005, 2007; Hastings et al., 2008; 

Halvorsen et al., 2011, 2012a,b; Hastings and Miskis-Olds, 2011; Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2012). 

There are two uses of SEL. One is referred to as single-strike SEL (SELss), and the other is 

cumulative SEL (SELcum)

2

. SELss is the index of energy in a single signal, such as a single pile driving 

strike or a single blast from a seismic airgun. SELcum is the index of energy in all of the signals presented, 

such as in all of the strikes during a pile driving operation or seismic study3

. 

2. BACKGROUND ON FISH HEARING

2.1. SOUND IN WATER

The basic physical principles of sound in water are the same as sound in air. Any sound source 

produces both pressure waves and actual motion of the medium particles. However, whereas the actual 

particle motion in air is inconsequential even a few centimeters from a sound source, particle motion 

travels (propagates) much further in water because of the density of water compared to air4

. For a more 

extensive discussion of underwater acoustics see Urick (1983) and Rogers and Cox (1988).

All fishes, including elasmobranchs, detect particle motion since it directly stimulates the inner ear 

(Popper et al., 2003; Casper et al., 2012b). In essence, the oscillatory particle motion “shakes” the fish 

when, because of differences in density, otolyths within the fish’s ear move differentially to clusters of 

hair cells thereby stimulating the hair cells that allow the fish to hear the stimulating sound (see 

Section 2.3). Bony fishes with an air bubble (most often the swim bladder) are also likely to detect 

pressure signals that are reradiated to the inner ear as particle motion. Species detecting pressure hear a 

wider range of frequencies and sounds of lower intensity than fishes without an air bubble since the 

bubble re-radiates the received signal, which is then detectable by the ear as a secondary sound source 

(Popper et al., 2003; Popper and Fay, 2010).

Exactly how well fishes with an air bubble hear depends on the relative position of the air bubble and 

ear. When the two structures are close together or when there is some kind of physical coupling between 

them, the bandwidth of hearing and sensitivity is greater than it is in fishes where the air bubble and ear 

are further apart or not coupled. In the latter case, the signal that is re-radiated from the air bubble 

attenuates (decreases) over the distance between the structures, whereas in the other species the proximity 

of the structures, or the coupling, ensures that most of the energy re-radiated from the bubble gets to the 

ear5

. 

 

2 Note: Abbreviations for single strike and cumulative SEL have not been standardized and are adopted here from Halvorsen et 

al. (2011, 2012a). 3 As discussed below, there is some indication that if there is sufficient time (e.g., more than 12 hr) between an accumulation 

period for SEL, then the accumulation for the next exposure period starts again at 0. 4 The wavelength of a sound in water is about 1,500 m/sec (it varies depending on salinity, depth, temperature, etc.). The 

wavelength is defined as 1500/frequency which means for a 500 Hz signal the wavelength is 3 m. For a 100 Hz signal the 

wavelength is 15 m and the near field transition point would be 15/6.28 = ~2.8 m. 5 Until recently the literature talked about hearing “generalists” and “specialists.” However, these terms are no longer in use. 

See Popper and Fay (2010) for explanation and discussion. 
J-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2.2. HEARING SENSITIVITY

Basic data on hearing provides information about the range of frequencies that a fish can detect and 

the lowest sound level that an animal is able to detect at a particular frequency (Figure J-1). This level is 

often called the “threshold”6

. Sounds that are above threshold are detectable by fishes.

Representative Hearing for Different Species

Frequency (Hz)

10 100 1000 10000

Sound Pressure Level (dB re 1 

υPa)

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Tuna (Group #2)

Atlantic Cod (2)

Pomacentrid (2)

Plaice (flatfish) (1)

American Shad (4)

Striped Bass (2)

Atlantic Croaker (2)

Silver Perch (3)

Figure J-1. Hearing Curves (Audiograms) for Select Bony Fishes (See Fay [1988], Nedwell et al. [2004], and 

Ramcharitar [2006] for Data). Each Data Point Indicates the Lowest Sound Level the Species Could 

Detect at a Particular Frequency (See Text for Caveats on Data). Group Number Given in the Legend 

Refers to the Discussion within the Text. Data for American Shad are Truncated at 50 kHz to Keep the 

Size of the Graph Reasonable, but It Should Be Noted That this Species Can Hear Sounds to At Least 

180 kHz (Mann et al., 1997). Note, That in Some Cases (E.G., plaice, Tuna), the Actual Threshold 

Measures Were in Terms of Particle Motion, and Use of a Pressure Scale is Not Appropriate. This May 

Be the Same for Other Species as Well. The Significance of This Figure, However, is the Hearing 

Range and the Relatively Differences in Sensitivity (Thresholds) for the Various Species. The Actual 

Threshold Values are Likely in Need of Re-evaluation.

Hearing thresholds have been determined for perhaps 100 species (examples in Figure J-1) (for data 

on hearing thresholds, see Fay [1988], Popper et al. [2003], Ladich and Popper [2004], Nedwell et al. 

[2004], Ramcharitar et al. [2006], and Popper and Schilt [2008]). 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 

 

6 Very often, for fish, hearing thresholds are the lowest levels at which sound is detected 50% of the time. In other words, 

whereas a fish will detect a particular signal 50% of the time, it will not detect the same signal 50% of the time. Variation in 

threshold is well known and reflects momentary changes in the detecting structure, in the motivation of the animal, and 

innumerable other factors.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-5

detect sounds to 1 kHz or below7

. 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). 

The data available, 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, although species without a swim bladder (e.g., plaice, elasmobranchs) are certainly only 

detectors of particle motion. Most importantly, it should be noted that hearing capabilities vary 

considerably between different bony fish species (Figure J-1; Table J-1), and there is no clear known 

correlation between hearing capability and environment. There is also broad variability in hearing 

capabilities within a single fish group. As just one example, there is broad diversity in hearing 

capabilities and hearing structures within the family Sciaenidae (drumfish, croakers) (Figure J-1; data 

reviewed in Ramcharitar et al. [2006]; see also Popper and Schilt [2008]). 

Table J-1 

Marine Fish Hearing Sensitivity. See Text for Caveats about the Data. For a Number of Additional Species, 

Hearing Capabilities can only be Surmised from Morphological Data. These Data are Shown Shaded in Gray

Family Common 

Name of Taxa

Highest 

Frequency 

Detected

(Hz)a

Hearing 

Categoryb 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 Not applicable No data

Moronidae Striped bass 1,000 2 Ramcharitar 

unpublished

Pomacentridae Damselfish 1,500 – 2,000 2 Myrberg and 

Spires, 1980

 

7 The lowest detectable frequency is often hard to determine since the limiting factor in experiments trying to measure this is

often the equipment. In many cases, the equipment does not work well at frequencies below 50-100 Hz, making it hard to 

determine if fishes can detect lower frequencies. However, recent studies using specialized equipment have demonstrated that

some species can detect sounds below 50 Hz (called infrasound), but it is still not clear if this is done by the ear or by the lateral 

line (Karlsen, 1992; Knudsen et al., 1994).
J-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Family Common 

Name of Taxa

Highest 

Frequency 

Detected

(Hz)a

Hearing 

Categoryb Reference Notes

Pomadasyidae Grunts 1,000 2 Tavolga and 

Wodinsky, 1963

Polyprionidae Wreckfish -- 2 Not applicable 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 Not applicable 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 a 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.

b See text for explanation.

Sources: Data compiled from reviews in Fay (1988) and Nedwell et al. (2004). Updated names: www.fishbase.org

Table J-1 and Figure J-1 provide data on a number of fish groups of potential interest for this report. 

The data in Table J-1 are presented in terms of fish taxa (family level) since data are often not available 

for specific species of interest. However, it is possible to extrapolate between broad groups of fishes in 

most cases. Where that is not the case, as in the sciaenids (reviewed in Ramcharitar et al., 2006), several 

different sets of data are shown. Moreover, this is also done when species within a group differ 

substantially in hearing structures. Thus, in the case of tuna, there are some species with a swim bladder 

(involved in pressure detection) and others that do not have a swim bladder (Iversen, 1967, 1969). 

Indeed, in the case of tuna, while the hearing range of the species with and without swim bladders is quite 

similar, it is likely that the sensitivity is poorer in the species without this structure.

It should also be noted that Table J-1 only gives the likely highest frequency of hearing for a fish and 

leaves out the low frequency end of the hearing bandwidth. This is done because 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. Thus, if the sound source used to study hearing is only good to 100 Hz, then that might be 

the lowest frequency that investigators report. As a consequence, the low frequency range, with a few 

exceptions, must be viewed with caution, even as presented in Figure J-1. 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.

Another point to note is that Table J-1 does not show hearing sensitivity, and the data in Figure J-1

are not presented as thresholds but as relative levels of hearing within a single fish’s hearing capabilities. 

Thus, Table J-1 does not show the lowest sound levels that a fish can hear, nor does it indicate at what 

frequency best hearing occurs. The table is presented as it is because there is wide variation in data even 

for a single species (e.g., see Fay [1988] for a demonstration of different data on hearing for goldfish). 

The variation is likely a result of experimental design. It is often the case that the investigators did not 

use the right stimulus parameter (pressure or particle motion) to test a species. Thus, investigators have 

often presented hearing sensitivity data for fishes in terms of pressure sensitivity, even when the fish is 

likely not to detect sound pressure as it primarily detects particle motion (something that, until recently, 

has been very hard to measure).

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. Indeed, such is 

the case for bluefin tuna, where, 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 
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-7

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 groups as to their hearing 

capabilities. This is presented in Table J-1 where a column provides the categories of each species 

represented, which are defined as follows:

• Group 1: Fishes that do not have a swim bladder (e.g., plaice in Figure J-1). 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 only detect sounds 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 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 

(e.g., silver perch in Figure J-1). 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, but that is 

only predicted based on morphology of the 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.

• Group 4: All of these fishes are members of the herring family and 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 (e.g., sardine), and some 

species (e.g., American shad) are able to detect sounds to over 180 kHz (Mann et al., 

2001).

2.3. OTHER ASPECTS OF FISH HEARING

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, see below), 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, all species are likely to have similar capabilities (reviewed in Fay and Megela-Simmons, 1999; 

Popper et al., 2003; Fay, 2005). 

Only a few points about the hearing structure in fishes is critical for this report, and readers interested 

in more detail can find reviews by Popper et al. (2003) and Popper and Schilt (2008). The fundamental 

structure for hearing by fishes is the inner ear. This is, in many ways, very similar in structure and 

function to the ear found in all other vertebrates. The inner ear has three otolith organs – the saccule, 

lagena, and utricle – each containing a dense structure called an otolith. The otolith lies in close 

proximity to a sensory surface called the sensory epithelium. Each epithelium contains sensory hair cells 

that are very similar to those found in the mammalian ear. On their top surfaces, sensory hair cells have 

hair-like projections, called cilia that are bent when the epithelium and otolith move out of phase from 

one another – something that takes place when sound stimulates the ear. The sensory cells respond 

physiologically to the bending of the cilia and send signals on to the brain via the eighth cranial nerve – 

the same nerve involved in hearing in humans.
J-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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). However, whereas in humans once sensory cells die they are not replaced, 

resulting in deafness, fishes are able to repair and replace cells that die (e.g., Lombarte et al., 1993; 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 and 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 add to their 

number, fishes are not likely to ever become deaf permanently. As discussed below, 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.

3. EFFECTS OF HUMAN-GENERATED SOUND ON FISHES – 

OVERVIEW

There is a wide range of potential outcomes of exposing fishes to sound, from no effect to immediate 

death. Data on effects of sounds are limited, and broad extrapolations about effects on different species 

(or on the same species at different ages or sizes) is not yet possible (see discussion in Popper and 

Hastings [2009b] and Popper and Hawkins [2012]). Moreover, while there are some (albeit limited) data 

on effects on physiology, far less is known about effects on behavior.

The actual effects will vary based on a large number of factors. In particular, other than for 

physiological damage, which does not depend on hearing per se, the likelihood of TTS, masking, and/or 

behavioral change will depend on whether the fish hears the sound. Figure J-2 illustrates the idea that 

there is a likelihood of any number of different potential effects close to the source and that the range of 

potential effects declines with increased distance from the source.

Figure J-2. Relationship between Noise Levels, Distance, and Potential Effects. Note That Close to the Source, 

There is a Range of Potential Effects, but as the Distance from the Source Increases and Sound Levels 

Get Lower, the Likelihood of Some Potential Effects Decreases. The Actual Effects Will Vary 

Depending on the Source. If the Source is Very Intensive, Then Mortality May Occur. But, If the 

Source is Less Intensive, Mortality and Physiological Effects May Not Be an Issue. At the Lowest 

Source Levels, Such as with Increases in Ambient Sounds, Behavioral Responses and/or Masking May 

be the Only Issues of Concern.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-9

The actual effects are also likely to depend on the nature of the sound source itself. One may divide 

sounds into two very overlapping “classes”: intermittent (or acute) and long-term (or chronic) (Popper 

and Løkkeborg, 2008). Intermittent sounds usually are of short duration and high intensity, and they are 

only present in a particular area for a short period of time. These include sounds produced by seismic 

airguns, sonars, and similar sources. Pile driving would also fit into this category, although it may last for 

hours, days, or even weeks. But, ultimately, pile driving ends. Loud intermittent sounds have the 

potential to cause death or injury if the animal is close to the source. They could also produce hearing 

impairment, masking, and behavioral effects to distances beyond those that would result in death or injury

(Figure J-2). 

Long-term (chronic) sources are generally lower in intensity than acute signals, may extend over a 

broad area, and, in general, raise the ambient noise level from a few to many decibels. In essence, chronic 

noise sources raise the overall background ambient level of the environment similar to what might be 

encountered when new machinery is added to a factory. In the case of the aquatic environment, perhaps 

the most dominant changes in the chronic noise environment come from boats which, is more likely to 

occur in a harbor, major shipping lanes, and similar areas. Long-term rises in sound level are not likely to 

result in death or physiological effects (though it is possible that there may be long-term changes in stress 

levels and immune response), but they could also produce hearing impairment, masking, and/or 

behavioral effects (Figure J-2). 

4. EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOUNDS ON HEARING

While there are few data on behavioral effects of sounds on fishes in the wild (see Section 6), there 

are substantial data on effects of such sounds on the ability of fishes to hear. If hearing is impaired, even 

temporarily, a fish may not be able to find food or detect predators as successfully. Such impairment may 

be by auditory masking or temporary impairment of hearing.

4.1. AUDITORY MASKING

Masking is a key issue for potential effects of human-generated sound on all vertebrates, including 

fishes (reviewed in Fay and Megela-Simmons, 1999; Popper et al., 2003). Masking occurs when there are 

sounds in the environment that are in the same frequency range as the sound of biological relevance to the 

animal and/or within the hearing range of the fishes. Thus, if a fish has a particular threshold for a 

biologically relevant sound in a quiet environment and a background noise in the same frequency range is 

introduced, this will decrease the ability of the fish to detect the biologically relevant signal. In effect, the 

threshold for the biologically relevant signal will become poorer. Thus, if background noise increases, it 

may be harder for a fish to detect the biologically relevant sounds that it needs to survive. Specifically, if 

the ambient noise (or masker) is raised by 10 dB, the threshold of the fish will increase by about 10 dB in 

the frequency range of the masker. 

The actual concern with regard to masking is that fishes will not be able to hear sounds of biological 

relevance as well as they would without the masking sound. Thus, if a fish uses sounds to detect 

predators, the presence of the increased ambient sound would keep the fish from hearing the predator 

until it was much closer. Similarly, if male fishes use sounds to attract females, as occurs in toadfish 

(reviewed in Zelick et al., 1999), sciaenids (reviewed in Ramcharitar et al., 2006), and many other 

species, the female would have to be much closer to the males before they could hear the sound. In other 

words, the effectiveness of a male’s call would decline in the presence of masking sounds since the 

females would be less likely to detect the sounds unless they are closer to the source (where the source is 

louder in the presence of the masker). Indeed, this effect is well known and has been described for a wide 

range of other vertebrates, including birds and amphibians (reviewed in Slabbekoorn et al., 2010).

More recently, it has been suggested that at least some larval fishes find the reefs upon which they 

will settle using sounds from the reef (e.g., Leis et al., 2003; Wright et al., 2005). These studies have 

suggested that if there is an increase in ambient (masking) noise, the larval fish would be less likely to 

hear the sounds of the reef and, thus, less likely find a place to settle. The reef sounds could be produced 

by a variety of sources, including snapping shrimp, water moving over reefs, other fishes, etc. and would 

be subject to masking by anthropogenic sounds within the hearing range of fishes. Clearly, if this 

observation is correct, then the presence of masking sounds could have a significant impact on long-term 

survival of populations of reef fishes.
J-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4.2. TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT

A second concern is that exposure to sounds can result in a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity, or 

TTS. Temporary threshold shift recovers after some period of time following the termination of the noise 

and results from temporary, but recoverable, damage to the sensory cells of the inner ear that are involved 

with for hearing (Smith et al., 2006). Permanent hearing loss (i.e., PTS), resulting from exposure to very 

loud sounds, occurs in humans and other mammals. Permanent threshold shift is not, however, known to 

occur in fishes, since unlike mammals, they can repair and regenerate the sensory cells of the ear that are 

damaged (e.g., Lombarte et al., 1993; Smith et al., 2006)8

. 

Data on TTS in fishes are reviewed in Popper and Hastings (2009b) and are only briefly summarized 

here. The data suggest that TTS occurs after long-term exposure to sounds that are as high as 170-180 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms), but only in species that have specializations that result in their having relatively wide 

hearing bandwidths (to over 2 kHz) and lower hearing thresholds than fishes without specializations. For 

example, TTS of 10-20 dB has been demonstrated in goldfish (Carassius auratus) and lined Raphael 

catfish (Platydoras costatus) (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2002; Smith et al., 2004a, 2006; Wysocki and 

Ladich, 2005), but little or no TTS has been found in fishes such as cichlids, sunfishes, and perch 

(e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001; Amoser and Ladich, 2003; Smith et al., 2004a,b; Wysocki and Ladich, 

2005). Moreover, studies of the effects of exposure to 150 dB re 1 μPa (rms, received level) for 9 months 

showed no effect on hearing or on survival and growth of young rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

(Wysocki et al., 2007). Significantly, in those species where TTS was found, hearing returned to normal 

starting well within 24 hr after the end of exposure (e.g., Smith et al., 2004b, 2006).

While TTS is not as likely to be particularly irrelevant with regard to repetitive sound sources, 

concerns have still arisen that fishes may temporarily have impaired hearing as a result of exposure to 

loud sounds (e.g., Popper et al., 2005, 2007; reviewed in Popper and Hastings, 2009b). Several studies 

show varying results, but overall, if TTS occurs as a result of exposure to loud sounds, it is not 

necessarily very great and recovery seems to be within 24 hr in most cases (Popper et al., 2005, 2007; 

Hastings et al., 2008; Hastings and Miskis-Olds, 2011).

The potential effects of TTS are similar to those of masking (see Section 4.1). If the hearing ability 

of an affected fish decreases, then the likelihood of detecting predators, prey, or mates (or a reef) decline, 

thus decreasing the potential fitness of the receiver until normal hearing returns.

4.3. EFFECTS OF HIGH INTENSITY SOURCES ON HEARING

Several studies have examined the effects of very high intensity sources on hearing and demonstrate 

little or no effect on a diverse group of species. Popper et al. (2005) and Song et al. (2008) examined the 

effects of exposure to a seismic airgun array on three species of fishes found in the Mackenzie River 

Delta near Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada. One species, the lake chub (Couesius plumbeus), has 

hearing specializations, whereas the northern pike (Esox lucius) and the broad whitefish (Coregonus 

nasus) (a salmonid) do not. Fishes were exposed to 5 or 20 shots from a 730-in3 (12,000 cc) calibrated 

airgun array. And unlike earlier studies, the received exposure levels were not only determined for rms 

sound pressure level, but also for peak sound levels and SELs (e.g., average mean peak SPL 

207 dB re 1 μPa RL; mean rms sound level 197 dB e 1 μPa RL; mean SEL 177 dB re 1 μPa

2

s).

For both the 5 and 20 airgun shots, the results showed a temporary hearing loss for both lake chub 

and northern pike but not for broad whitefish. Hearing loss was on the order of 20-25 dB at some 

frequencies for both the northern pike and lake chub; full hearing recovery occurred within 18 hr after 

sound exposure.

Popper et al. (2007) studied the effect of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) 

low-frequency active (LFA) sonar on hearing, the structure of the ear, and select non-auditory systems in 

the rainbow trout and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (also Halvorsen et al., 2006). Fishes were 

exposed to LFA sonar for 324 or 648 seconds, an exposure duration that is far greater than any fishes in 

the wild would get since, in the wild, the sound source is on a vessel moving past the far slower 

swimming fishes. The maximum received level was approximately 193 dB re 1 μPa at 196 Hz. Analysis 

 

8 Interesting note: The sensory cells in the mammalian and fish ear responsible for hearing are the same. The difference 

between fishes and mammals is that fishes retain a regenerative mechanism in the ear for when cells are lost, whereas no such 

capacity is found in mammals.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-11

of hearing showed that channel catfish and some specimens of rainbow trout showed 10-20 dB of hearing 

loss immediately after exposure to the LFA sonar when compared to baseline and control animals; 

however, another group of rainbow trout showed no hearing loss. Recovery in trout took at least 48 hr, 

and channel catfish recovered with 24 hr. Similar studies on several other species, including hybrid 

sunfish and black perch, showed no TTS to the same signals (Halvorsen et al., 2006). 

Finally, Hastings et al. (2008) studied TTS in Indian Ocean reef fishes during a seismic survey with a 

full airgun array. They found no hearing loss following sound exposures up to 190 dB re 1 μPa2

-s 

cumulative SEL in a species that hears well, in the pinecone soldierfish (Myripristis murdjan), and in 

three species that do not have hearing specializations: the blue green damselfish (Chromis viridis), sabre 

squirrelfish (Sargocentron spiniferum), and bluestripe seaperch (Lutjanus kasmira). 

In summary, it is clear that if hearing loss occurs after exposure to intense sounds (and it does not 

always occur), it primarily shows up in fishes with hearing specializations and is not permanent (i.e., there 

is full recovery). More importantly, TTS is less likely to show up in fishes without hearing 

specializations. The only time that TTS has been documented as a response to high intensity sources has 

been when the exposure duration has substantially exceeded the amount of time that an animal would 

normally be exposed to such sounds in the wild (Popper et al., 2007).

5. EFFECTS OF HIGH INTENSITY SOURCES

Intensive sources are generally short (measured in parts of a second to several seconds) and are highly 

intensive at the source (attenuation follows normal attenuation characteristics of sound in water). Also, 

exposure time to the sound for an animal may be rather short. For example, a fish exposed to high 

intensity sonar may only hear a few sonar sounds since the source, on a boat, is moving. In the case of 

seismic devices, the source is constantly moving, although the sounds may increase the overall ambient 

noise for the duration of a 3D seismic study. Sounds from pile driving may last for as long as the pile 

driving operation, but there frequently are periods of pile driving followed by longer periods of silence as 

the pile driving equipment is moved to a new pile or other construction activities occur that increase the 

time between pile driving actions. 

The concerns associated with intensive sources range from immediate mortality to delayed mortality 

to behavioral effects (Figure J-2). Behavioral effects are varied and less likely to involve masking or 

TTS, as found in long-term exposures, because of the short periods of the intense sounds. However, there 

are concerns, as discussed below, that an extended seismic survey could result in fishes leaving their 

feeding or spawning areas for extended periods of time, or even permanently, which could impact 

survival of populations as well as catchability for fishers (e.g., Engås et al., 1996; Slotte et al., 2004; 

Løkkeborg et al., 2012). 

At the same time, while much concern about intensive sources rests on immediate mortality, the 

limited data suggest that the circumstances under which immediate mortality occurs are very limited. 

Indeed, there are no data to suggest mortality associated with high intensity sources other than pile 

driving9

. 

The only data on mortality associated with sound (as compared to explosives) come from driving very 

large piles. For example, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 2001) showed some 

mortality for several different species of wild fishes exposed to driving of steel pipe piles 2.4 m (8 ft) in 

diameter. However, no mortality seems to occur at distances of more than approximately 10 m (32.8 ft) 

from the source. Only recently have data become available to suggest the ranges from a driven pile at 

which injury may occur (Halvorsen et al., 2011). 

5.1. NON-AUDITORY PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO INTENSE 

SOUNDS

Non-auditory physiological effects from exposure to intense sounds generally result from rapid and 

substantial expansion and contraction of the air bubble walls within fishes (such as the swim bladder or 

air bubbles in the blood) that strike against nearby tissues or from air bubbles within the blood bursting or 

expanding and damaging tissues (Stephenson et al., 2010). The actual nature of non-auditory 

 

9 Note: There is mortality associated with explosive devices, but this is outside the purview of this Appendix. A discussion of 

the effects of explosives can be found in Hastings and Popper (2005) and Popper and Hastings (2009b).
J-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

physiological effects may range from a very small amount of external bleeding to small internal bleeding 

to substantial hemorrhage of tissues (such as kidney or liver), rupture of the swim bladder, occlusion of 

gills, and other organ damage (see Stephenson et al. [2010] and Halvorsen et al. [2011, 2012a,b] for a 

discussion of the range of potential effects).

There are several potential (and overlapping) consequences of non-auditory physiological effects. 

One possibility is that the effects heal, and there is no lasting consequence. Alternatively, even if the 

physiological effect has no direct consequences per se, it is possible that it leads to temporary decreased 

fitness of the animal until the damage is healed. This could result in the animal being subject to 

predation, less able to find food, or other consequences that result in death.

Secondly, the effect could result in delayed mortality from events such as continuous bleeding or 

disruption of tissues (e.g., spleen or liver). Or, the tissue damage itself may not be life threatening, but it 

may become infected and potentially result in death. 

There are few quantified and reliable data on effects of exposure to high intensity sound on body 

tissues. There are a number of studies showing no tissue damage as a result of exposure of several 

different species to sonar (Kane et al., 2010), seismic devices (Song et al., 2008), and pile driving 

(Caltrans, 2010a,b). However, in each of these studies, the swim bladder in the fishes may not have been 

filled with air, and this could have resulted in less likelihood of damage as compared to situations where 

the swim bladder is filled with its normal mass of air (Halvorsen et al., 2011, 2012a,b; Casper et al., 

2012a). 

The only quantifiable study documenting a range of physiological effects on fishes comes from 

exposure of Chinook salmon and several other species to 960 or 1,920 strikes of simulated pile driving 

sounds (Halvorsen et al., 2011, 2012a,b; Casper et al., 2012a) at a static pressure of 1 atm. These studies

demonstrate that effects are graded, with what is likely to be minimal peripheral bleeding at the lowest 

(but still very intense) sound exposures (207 dB re 1 μPa2

·s SELcum or higher, depending on the species) 

to significant bleeding and tissue rupture at the very highest levels presented in the study 

(219 dB re 1 μPa2

·s SELcum). Importantly, fish held for a period of time post-exposure showed complete 

recovery from most of the effects, although the investigators are very careful to point out that recovery 

took place in a lab tank where fish with slightly lowered fitness would not be subject to predation or 

disease as may happen in the wild (Casper et al., 2012a). 

It is of particular interest that approximately the same sound exposure levels are required for the start 

of physiological effects (onset of injury) in species that are widely different taxonomically and in 

morphology (Casper et al., 2012a; Halvorsen et al., 2012a,b). For example, even though there are 

substantial differences in body shape and overall morphology between Nile tilapia, hybrid striped bass, 

and lake sturgeon, all three species show the first onset of (revoverable) physiological effects at about 

207 dB re 1 μPa2

·s SELcum. Moreeover, the hogchoker, a flatfish without a swim bladder, showed no 

effect from exposure to sounds as high as 216 dB re 1 μPa2

·s SELcum, the sound level that resulted in 

mortal injuries in the other species (Halvorsen et al., 2012b). Indeed, by showing no effect in a species 

without a swim bladder, these studies provide evidence that the major effects in fishes from high intensity 

sound sources is from the presence of air bubbles, such as the swim bladder, as discussed above.

Indeed, the overall impact on fishes in an ecosystem is low, as only a very small fraction of the fish 

population will likely be close enough to an intense source to be subject to immediate mortality. The 

open issues may be (a) injury that can lead to delayed mortality and (b) behavioral effects that lower 

fitness (e.g., move from migratory routes, leave food sites, and masking of biologically important 

sounds).

5.2. AUDITORY EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO INTENSE SOUNDS

Several studies have examined effects of high intensity sounds on the ear. While there was no effect 

on ear tissue in either the SURTASS LFA study (Popper et al., 2007) or in the study of effects of seismic 

airguns on hearing (Popper et al., 2005; Song et al., 2008), three earlier studies suggested that there may 

be some loss of sensory hair cells resulting from exposure to high intensity sources. However, none of 

these studies concurrently investigated effects on hearing. Enger (1981) showed some loss of sensory 

cells after exposure to pure tones in the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). A similar result was shown for the 

lagena of the oscar (Astronotus oscellatus), a cichlid fish, after an hour of continuous exposure (Hastings 

et al., 1996). In neither study was the hair cell loss more than a relatively small percentage of the total 
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-13

sensory hair cells in the hearing organs. And, in neither case was the sound anything like the high 

intensity sources of concern today. 

Most recently, McCauley et al. (2003) showed loss of a small percentage of sensory hair cells in the 

saccule (the only end organ studied) of the pink snapper (Pagrus auratus), and this loss continued to 

increase (but never to become a major proportion of sensory cells) for up to at least 58 days 

post-exposure. This hair cell loss or the ones in the Atlantic cod or oscar would not necessarily have 

resulted in hearing loss since fishes have tens or even hundreds of thousands of sensory hair cells in each 

otolithic organ (Popper and Hoxter, 1984; Lombarte and Popper, 1994), and only a small portion were 

affected by the sound. The question remains as to why McCauley et al. (2003) found damage to sensory 

hair cells while Popper et al. (2005) did not. The difference in results may very well be associated with 

differences in species, precise sound source, spectrum of the sound, and sound propagation effects. For 

example, the Popper et al. (2005) study was in relatively shallow water with poor low-frequency 

propagation, therefore, the spectrum of sound is likely to have been very different than in the McCauley 

et al. (2003) study (Hastings, 2009).

One question that arises in the McCauley study is the continued damage to sensory cells after 58 days 

and whether this would indicate that there was permanent hair cell damage and hearing loss. Since the 

tissue sampled at each time interval in this study were from different fish, it is impossible to know if the 

dead cells on Day 58 had been replaced by newly formed cells and what was seen as damage was scar 

tissue or if the cells that died post-exposure were not replaced. However, based on the considerable data 

demonstrating hair cell replacement and addition in many fish species, it is likely that even if the cells that 

were damaged did not get replaced, the high rate of sensory cell proliferation in fishes would have 

compensated for the small number of lost hair cells (e.g., Corwin, 1981; Popper and Hoxter, 1984; 

Lombarte and Popper, 1994, 2004).

6. EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOUNDS ON BEHAVIOR

Perhaps the biggest issue with regard to effects of anthropogenic sound is the potential effects on fish 

behavior. Some potential effects can be suggested based on studies of masking and TTS (see Section 4). 

However, whether TTS or masking actually impacts behavior or whether other behaviors are affected by 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., leaving a feeding area, changes in migratory paths) is very difficult to study 

and can only be studied using wild animals in the open water. While investigators have, from time to 

time, suggested that behavior can be predicted based on responses to sound in tanks, small cages, or larger 

enclosures, there is always the question as to whether these behaviors are the same as would be 

encountered in fishes in the wild whose responses were restricted by only their being able to move limited 

distances. As will be discussed below, there are a few studies that give some suggestion as to the 

potential responses of wild fishes to sound sources.

However, before discussing those results, it is critical to appreciate the complexities associated with 

understanding responses of fishes to increased ambient noise and/or the presence of intense sound 

sources. In fact, fishes may (or may not) show behavioral responses to a sound, and, if a response occurs, 

the nature of the response may vary widely. It is equally important to note that the nature of a response 

(or whether there is a response at all) varies depending on the type of signal heard as well as on the 

motivation of the fishes to respond, the experience of the fishes in the presence of a particular sound or to 

sounds in general, the age of a fish, and many other factors. Thus, predicting behavior is not simply 

correlating sound level or type with a behavior and assuming this behavior will show up every time that 

sound occurs. Instead, a fish may respond to a sound at one time but not at another and the response may 

be predicated on what the fish is otherwise doing when the sound is presented. Therefore, a fish that is 

mating may be less likely to respond to an anthropogenic sound than a fish that is simply swimming 

around, and a fish that has heard the same sound multiple times and does not associate danger with it may 

not respond, whereas a fish that hears the sound for the first time may respond.

The difficulty of predicting behavior is documented not only in the data on fishes but also from data 

on hearing for amphibians, birds, and mammals (including humans). These data show, in general, that as 

sound levels in the environment increase, animals tend to respond in different ways, which often vary 

depending on the nature of the sound source and sound level as well as on the behavioral state of the 

animal (e.g., what it is doing) when the sound level changes. Responses of animals vary widely 

(reviewed in Brumm and Slabbekoorn [2005]). These may include movement from the area of maximum 

sound level, as shown for several fish species (Engås et al., 1996; Slotte et al., 2004), to changing the 
J-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

intensity of calls so they can be heard over the background sounds (Bee and Swanson, 2007) or changing 

the spectrum of the emitted sounds so they are no longer masked, as has been shown in a variety of 

species (Brumm and Slabbekoorn, 2005; Dooling et al., 2009; Parris et al., 2009; Laiolo, 2010; 

Slabbekoorn et al., 2010).

It is also critical to note that animals (and humans) generally do not respond to sounds when the 

sounds are just detectable (whether there is background sound or not). Sounds generally have to be well 

above the minimal detectable level in order to elicit behavioral responses10. At the lowest sound levels, 

the animal may simply ignore the sound since it is deemed “not important” or from too distant of a 

source. It is only at higher levels where the animal becomes “aware” of the sound and may make a 

decision that it is important or not to behaviorally respond. To put it into terms of masking, it is possible 

that the sound has to be sufficiently above the masked threshold of detection for the animal to be able to 

resolve the signal within the noise and recognize the signal as being of biological relevance.

By way of example, in an experiment on responses of American shad to sounds produced by their 

predators (dolphins), it was found that if the predator sound is detectable but not very loud the shad will 

not respond (Plachta and Popper, 2003). But, if the sound level is raised by about 8 or 10 dB, the 

American shad will turn and move away from the sound source. Finally, if the sound is made even 

louder, as if a predator were nearby, the American shad go into a frenzied set of motions that probably 

helps them avoid being caught. It was speculated by the researchers that the lowest sound levels were 

recognized by the American shad as being from very distant predators and, thus, not worth a response. At 

somewhat higher levels, the American shad recognized that the predator was closer and started to swim 

away. Finally, the loudest sound was thought to resemble a very nearby predator, eliciting maximum 

response to avoid predation.

At the same time, there is evidence from a recent study in Norway (Doksaeter et al., 2009) that fishes 

will only respond to sounds that are of biological relevance to them. Doksaeter et al. (2009) showed no 

responses at all from free-swimming herring (Clupea) when exposed to sonars produced by naval vessels. 

Similarly, sounds at the same received level that had been produced by major predators of the herring 

(killer whales) elicited strong flight responses. 

Significantly, the sound levels received by the fishes from the sonar in this experiment were from 

197-209 dB (rms) re 1 μPa at 1-2 kHz. In this frequency range, the hearing threshold for herring that are 

most closely related to those used in the Doksaeter et al. (2009) study is about 125-135 dB re 1 μPa 

(Mann et al., 2005). This means that the fish showed no reactions to a sound that is biologically 

irrelevant even though the sound was up to 84 dB above the fish’s hearing threshold (209 dB sonar versus 

120 dB threshold).

It is likely that responses from fishes to any noise source, including pile driving, will show gradations 

in responses similar to the American shad. Therefore, fish responses can be seen as being in several 

sequential steps (see also Figure J-2): 

• Fishes do not hear the sound (it is too low and/or masked).

• The sound is at a higher level detectable to the fish, but it is sufficiently low that the 

sound is “dismissed” as not being biologically relevant or important.

• The sound is somewhat higher above threshold, but the fish cannot discriminate it 

from the ambient sounds and so still does not respond (e.g., informational masking).

• The sound is clearly audible to the fish and recognizable, but the fish does not 

respond or makes only an initial, small response (e.g., startle) and then returns to 

whatever it was doing. In addition, after multiple presentations of the sound, the fish 

may decide that the sound is not biologically important, and the animal habituates 

and no longer shows a startle response.

• Sound is even louder, and the fish recognizes it as something that may be biologically 

relevant and may change behavior (e.g., swim away or change swimming course). 

But, when the sound ends or after the fish habituates to the sound, the animal returns 

to what it was doing.

• The fish may totally avoid the very loudest signals if they perceive it as being 

potentially “harmful” and permanently change location or migratory pattern.

 

10Of course, there are exceptions. A parent will respond to the lowest sound produced by their newborn child, and a person 

walking down a very dark street at night will probably respond to sounds of scraping feet even if they are very quiet.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-15

6.1. FISH CATCH AND ANTHROPOGENIC SOUND

Several studies have demonstrated that human-generated sounds may affect the behavior of at least a 

few species of fishes. Engås et al. (1996) examined movement of fishes during and after a seismic airgun 

study by determining catch rate of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and Atlantic cod as an indicator 

of fish behavior. These investigators found a significant decline in catch rate of both species that lasted 

for several days after termination of airgun use. Catch rate subsequently returned to normal. The 

conclusion was that the decline in catch rate resulted from the fish moving away from the fishing site as a 

result of the airgun sounds. However, the investigators did not actually observe behavior, and it is 

possible that the fish just changed depth. Another alternative explanation is that the airguns actually 

killed the fish in the area, and the return to normal catch rate occurred because of other fishes entering the 

fishing areas. 

More recent work from the same group (Slotte et al., 2004) showed parallel results for several 

additional pelagic species, including blue whiting and Norwegian spring spawning herring11. However, 

unlike earlier studies from this group, the authors used fishing sonar to observe behavior of the local fish 

schools. They reported that fishes in the area of the airguns appeared to go to greater depths after the 

airgun exposure. Moreover, the abundance of animals approximately 30-50 km (18.6-31.1 mi) away from 

the ensonification increased, suggesting that migrating fish would not enter the zone of seismic activity.

Similarly, Skalski et al. (1992) showed a 52 percent decrease in rockfish (Sebastes sp.) catch when 

the area of catch was exposed to a single airgun emission at 186-191 dB re 1 μPa (mean peak level) (see 

also Pearson et al. [1987, 1992]). They also demonstrated that fishes would show a startle response to 

sounds as low as 160 dB, but this level of sound did not appear to elicit a decline in catch.

Culik et al. (2001) conducted a very limited number of experiments to determine catch rate of herring 

(Clupea harengus) in the presence of pingers producing sounds that overlapped with the frequency range 

of herring hearing (2.7-160 kHz). They found no change in catch rate in gill nets with or without the 

higher frequency sounds (>20 kHz) present, although there was an increase in catch rate with the signals 

from 2.7-19 kHz (a different source than that of the higher frequency). The results could mean that the 

fish did not “pay attention” to the higher frequency sound or that they did not hear it, or that lower 

frequency sounds may be attractive to fish. There were no behavioral observations to document how the 

fish actually responded when they detected the sound.

Most recently, Løkkeborg et al. (2012) repeated the earlier study using a somewhat different 

approach, and the results were different from those found initially. There was some suggestion that the 

fish in this study did not respond to the seismic sounds in these studies, but comparisons are hard to make 

because of substantial experimental differences. However, what these results do suggest is that 

understanding and predicting effects of sound on fishes will not be simple, and that there are many factors 

that come into play in trying to understand fish behavior.

6.2. OTHER BEHAVIORAL STUDIES

There have been a variety of other behavioral studies, none of which provide conclusive evidence that 

fishes will or will not respond to a particular sound source. For example, Wardle et al. (2001) used a 

video system to examine the behaviors of fishes and invertebrates on a coral reef in response to emissions 

from seismic airguns that were carefully calibrated and measured to have a peak level of 210 dB re 1 μPa 

at 16 m (164 ft) from the source and 195 dB re 1 μPa at 109 m (357.6 ft) from the source. They found no 

substantial or permanent changes in the behavior of the fishes or invertebrates on the reef throughout the 

course of the study, and no animals appeared to leave the reef. There was no indication of any observed 

damage to the animals. 

Mueller-Blenkle et al. (2010) examined responses of several penned Atlantic Ocean species to sounds 

recorded from pile driving, but results were equivocal and could not be used to predict responses of fishes 

to pile driving. Indeed, responses levels were low, and fishes showed some acclimation to the sounds, 

suggesting (though not proving) that fishes might learn to ignore high levels of anthropogenic sound over 

time.

 

11Scientific names for neither species were given in publication.
J-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

A study by Jorgenson and Gyselman (2009) may provide some insight into how fishes would behave 

in response to intense anthropogenic sounds12. The authors exposed fishes in the Mackenzie River 

(Northwest Territories, Canada) to seismic airguns and using sonar observed the movements of the fishes. 

The goal was to determine if a seismic survey, using high intensity sounds for long periods of time, could 

impact behavior by changing migratory patterns of fishes.

The investigators could not determine the species observed by sonar, but based on known river 

inhabitants, they suggest that there were a variety of species present, including those used by Popper et al. 

(2005)13. While results may be limited to one or two species, the investigators found that free-swimming 

fishes observed with sonar showed no response to the airguns with respect to changes in swimming 

direction or speed, even when sound exposure levels (single discharge) were on the order of 

175 dB re 1 μPa2

·s and peak levels of over 200 dB re 1 μPa.

Finally, Sarà et al. (2007) used divers to observe the behavioral responses of bluefin tuna 

(Thunnus thynnus) in large in-ocean cages (approximately 70 m [230 ft] square opening and 30 m [98 ft] 

deep) to noise from passing boats. The results showed that the tuna schools would change depth and 

some swimming patterns in the presence of sounds from approaching ferries and hydrofoils (normal 

transport in the region of the cages) and exhibit various other types of behavior in response to sounds 

from small boats. While these results are potentially of interest in suggesting that at least bluefin tuna 

may be disturbed by vessel noise, the authors did not provide sound levels received at the fish. Moreover, 

the fish used are a large oceanic pelagic schooling species (weight of 40-54 kg [88-119 lb] in this study) 

and the results may not necessarily apply to other species.

7. PRESSURE VS. PARTICLE MOTION

Of growing interest is the question as to whether the particle motion component of a sound field will 

affect fishes (including sharks and rays), invertebrates, and possibly even sea turtles in ways similar to 

that of sound pressure. This issue was raised recently at the BOEM Workshop on Effects of Sound on 

Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 201214). The concern is that many fishes 

and all invertebrates are likely to detect particle motion. And, since all sound sources produce particle 

motion as well as sound pressure, it is possible that this component of the sound field needs additional 

consideration, at least with respect to potential behavioral effects. 

It is necessary to consider potential effects of particle motion in terms of both behavioral effects 

(through hearing) and physiological effects on auditory and non-auditory tissues. In effect, the issues for 

particle motion are no different than for pressure. For both pressure and particle motion, behavioral 

effects will occur only if the signals are detected (heard!) by the animal. In contrast, even if an animal 

cannot detect pressure and/or particle motion, there still could be an effect resulting from the signal 

producing motion of any air bubbles in the animal body and thereby causing damage to nearby tissues. 

Very little is known about sound detection in invertebrates (see Normandeau Asssociates, Inc., 2012). 

Indeed, while some marine invertebrates have sensory receptors that resemble hearing organs (e.g., 

cephalopods), others do not (see literature synthesis in Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2012 for a review). 

It will, therefore, be very important to do studies of detection of particle motion in invertebrates. 

While we know that fishes can detect particle motion, there are few data on particle motion detection 

capabilities. This is because most studies of fish hearing to date have focused on pressure since it is far 

easier to make these measurements than to measure particle motion. Indeed, even now there are few 

easily available and usable instruments that enable calibration of particle motion in tanks or in the field. 

As a consequence, even species that are likely to primarily detect particle motion have only been tested 

for hearing in terms of sound pressure.

The other issue is whether higher intensity particle motion signals, and accompanying higher 

magnitude pressures, could have physiological effects on fishes and invertebrates. This can, presumably, 

occur even if the animals cannot “hear” the signal since effects of high intensity signals may result in 

changes in the volume of air bubbles in the body cavity, and such changes might affect nearby tissues 

(Sections 1.4 and 5.1). 

 

12 It should be noted that this study was done on fish in a river, and it is not clear how applicable results would be to fishes in a 

marine environment and, thus, in a much larger expanse of water in which they can move around. 13The Jorgenson and Gyselman study was conducted just after the Popper et al. (2005) investigation and so it is highly likely that 

the same species, plus additional species, were in the Mackenzie River at the time. 14 The literature survey in Normandeau (2012) was written by Drs. Anthony Hawkins and Arthur Popper.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-17

In considering potential effects of the particle motion accompanying high intensity sounds on fishes 

and invertebrates, it is important to consider one aspect of the physics of sound in water. That is, while 

both pressure and particle motion are produced by a sound source, the particle motion attenuates more 

rapidly as it leaves the source than does pressure (e.g., Rogers and Cox, 1988). Thus, after a relatively 

short distance (within one wavelength of the sound), particle motion has attenuated substantially, and it 

continues to decline at a rapid rate with distance from the source. This means that any effect as a result of 

exposure to particle motion (as well as its detection) is very likely to only occur very close to a source. 

Thus, while particle motion is important to many species for hearing, the distance from a source over 

which particle motion may potentially be damaging will be substantially smaller than for pressure. 

While this means that the potential detection and impacts of particle motion are only likely to occur 

close to a source, it is also important to understand that the actual effect may take place over much greater 

distances if the source puts energy into the substrate (e.g., pile driving, seismic airguns). In such cases, 

significant energy may propagate through the substrate and enter the water column at some distance from 

the source. Such a signal would radiate from the substrate, which acts as a secondary source, as both 

pressure and particle motion. While particle motion would again attenuate rapidly as the signal 

propagates from the substrate, animals living close to (or in) the substrate would likely detect the particle 

motion signal (even if they cannot detect pressure). There are no data to indicate if and how such a signal 

could have any effect on animals, but it is clear that the level of energy that would enter the water column

from the substrate is very likely to be sufficiently low, both in pressure and particle motion, so it could 

not result in physiological effects. Moreover, since most particle motion detecting species (including 

elasmobranchs and invertebrates) have no air chambers, it is highly likely there would be no physiological 

effect.

The conclusions regarding particle motion are as follows: (a) more data are needed about whether it 

is detected by marine animals; (b) more needs to be known about behavioral responses to particle motion 

signals and whether such signals can “mask” detection of biologically relevant signals and/or alter 

behavior; (c) it is unlikely that particle motion would have the potential to result in physiological effects 

on any species unless they are very close to a source where accompanying high magnitude pressures 

would present a greater risk of injury; and (d) any effects from particle motion are likely to decline very 

rapidly even at short distances from a source. At the same time, it must be realized that as long as an 

animal has an air bubble, there is the potential for non-auditory tissue effects from high intensity pressure 

signals even if the animal cannot “hear” the pressure signal.

8. OTHER ISSUES WITH REGARD TO EFFECTS OF 

ANTHROPOGENIC SOUNDS

8.1. STRESS

Although an increase in background sound may cause stress in humans15, there have been few studies 

on fishes (e.g., Smith et al., 2004b; Remage-Healey et al., 2006; Wysocki et al., 2006, 2007). There is 

some indication of physiological effects on fishes, such as a change in hormone levels and altered 

behavior, in some (Pickering, 1981; Smith et al., 2004a,b) but not all species tested to date (e.g., Wysocki 

et al., 2007). Sverdrup et al., 1994 found that Atlantic salmon subjected to up to 10 explosions to 

simulate seismic airguns released primary stress hormones, adrenaline and cortisol, as a biochemical 

response. There was no mortality. All experimental subjects returned to their normal physiological levels 

within 72 hr of exposure. Since stress affects human health, it seems reasonable that stress from loud 

sound may impact fish health, but available information is too limited to adequately address the issue. 

8.2. EGGS AND LARVAE

An additional area of concern is whether high intensity sounds may have an impact on eggs and 

larvae of fishes. Eggs and larvae do not move very much and so must be considered as a stationary object 

 

15The data here are very complex, and there are many variables in understanding how sound may stress humans or any animal. 

The variables include sound level, duration, frequency spectrum, physiological state of the animal, and innumerable other 

factors. Thus, extrapolation from human stress effects to other organisms is highly problematic and should be done with only 

the most extreme caution. 
J-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

with regard to a moving sound source. Thus, the time for impact of sound is relatively small since there 

is no movement relative to the vessel.

There have been a few studies on effects of sound on eggs and larvae (reviewed extensively in Popper 

and Hastings, 2009b), and there are no definitive conclusions to be reached. At the same time, many of 

the studies have used non-acoustic mechanical signals such as dropping the eggs and larvae or subjecting 

them to explosions (e.g., Lagardère, 1982; Jensen and Alderdice, 1983, 1989; Dwyer et al., 1993). Other 

studies have placed the eggs and/or larvae in very small chambers (e.g., Banner and Hyatt, 1973) where 

the acoustics are not suitable for comparison with what might happen in a free sound field (and even in 

the small chambers, results are highly equivocal). A few studies of the effects of high energy sounds on 

eggs and larvae of invertebrates also provided no definitive evidence of damage, but, like for vertebrates, 

there are insufficient studies to reach firm conclusions as to the effects of sounds on invertebrates 

(Lagardère and Régnault, 1980).

Several studies did examine effects of sounds on fish eggs and larvae, and, in all cases, there were no 

observed effects on normal survival or hatching, including with the use of sounds that mimic those 

produced by seismic airguns (e.g., Kostyuchenko, 1972). In contrast, Booman et al. (1996) investigated 

the effects of seismic airguns on eggs, larvae, and fry of different larval stages of cod (Gadus morhua), 

saithe (Pollachius virens), herring (Clupea harengus), turbot (Psetta maximus), and plaice (Pleuronectes 

platessa) in field experiments. They exposed fishes to sound source with peak sound pressure levels, 

220-242 dB re 1 μPa2

, and found significant mortality, but only when the specimens were within about 

5 m (16.4 ft) of the source. The most substantial effects were to fishes that were within 1.4 m (4.6 ft) of 

the source. While the authors suggested damage to some cells, such as those of the lateral line, few data 

were reported, and the study is in need of replication. Moreover, it should be noted that the eggs and 

larvae were very close to the airgun array; at such close distances, the particle velocity of the signal would 

be exceedingly large. However, the received sound pressure and particle velocity were not measured in 

this study.

Jørgensen et al. (2005) examined effects of high intensity pure tones from 1.5-6.5 kHz on the survival 

and behavior of larval and juvenile fishes of several species placed in small plastic bags. The study used 

herring (Clupea harengus) (standard lengths 2-5 cm [0.8-1.9 in]), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) (standard 

length 2-6 cm [0.8-2.4 in]), saithe (Pollachius virens) (4 cm [1.6 in]), and spotted wolffish 

(Anarhichas minor) (4 cm [1.6 in]) at different developmental stages. Both tissue pathology and survival 

were studied in response to sounds from 150-189 dB, and the only effects found were 20-30 percent

mortality in one group of herring larvae at the highest sound levels, but this was not replicated. 

In a follow-up unpublished analysis of these data, Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen (2005) sought to 

understand whether the mid-frequency continuous wave (CW) signals used by Jørgensen et al. (2005) 

would have a significant impact on larvae and juveniles exposed to this sonar in the wild. The 

investigators concluded that the extent of damage/death induced by the sonar would be below the level of 

loss of larval and juvenile fishes from natural causes, and so no concerns should be raised. The only issue 

they did suggest that needs to be considered is when the CW signal is at the resonance frequency of the 

swim bladders of small clupeids. If this is the case, the investigators predict (based on minimal data that 

are in need of replication) that such sounds might increase the mortality of small clupeids that have swim 

bladders that would resonate.

Most recently, a group in the Netherlands exposed larvae of common sole (Solea solea) to simulated 

pile driving sounds in an apparatus that is very similar to that used by Halvorsen et al. (2011, 2012a,b) for 

larger fish (de Jong et al., 2011; Bolle et al., 2012). The larvae of different stages were exposed to sound 

with SELcum of up to 206 dB re 1 μPa2

·s without any effect on fish mortality. In other words, there were 

no differences in mortality between fish exposed to the simulated pile driving sound and fish that served 

as controls. The authors did not, however, look at effects on fish tissue or larval growth, and it is possible 

that either or both of these would have shown an effect of sound exposure.

8.3. INVERTEBRATES

One question that is difficult to answer is the potential effect of high intensity sounds on invertebrates 

(e.g., crabs and cephalopods). There are almost no data on hearing by aquatic invertebrates, and the few 

suggestions of hearing indicates that it is for low frequencies and only to the particle motion component 

of the sound field (e.g., Mooney et al., 2010; also see review in the literature synthesis in Normandeau

Associates, Inc., 2012). There are few data indicating if and how invertebrates may use sound in 
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-19

behavior, although a number of species make sounds and so, presumably, use such sounds for 

communication (e.g., Budelmann, 1992; Popper et al., 2001). However, there are no data that indicate 

whether masking occurs in invertebrates or suggest whether sounds from construction would have any 

impact on invertebrate behavior. The one available study on effects of seismic exploration on shrimp 

suggests no behavioral effects at sound levels with a source level of about 196 dB re 1 μPa rms at 1 m 

(Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2005).

There are also no substantive data on whether the high sound levels of any anthropogenic sound 

would have physiological effects on invertebrates. The only potentially relevant data are from a study on 

the effects of seismic exploration on snow crabs on the east coast of Canada (Boudreau et al., 2009). The 

preponderance of evidence from this study showed no short-term or long-term effects of seismic exposure 

in adult or juvenile animals or on eggs. Indeed, as discussed in Section 5.1, in order for there to be 

physiological effects of intense sounds (pressure or particle motion), the animal must have air bubbles 

(either in the blood or in air chambers) or some other potentially resonate structure that would be set into 

motion by the signal. Unless such resonating structures are present, the likelihood of physiological 

effects are probably low (though this has yet to be studied).

Two other studies are important to mention, but only because the results are likely to be referenced. 

It is important to note that both have substantial problems that make them scientifically unsound. An 

unpublished study by Guerra et al. (2004) suggested that there was damage to body tissues in squid that 

had possibly been exposed to high intensity naval sonars. However, there is no evidence that the animals 

were exposed to sonar (only an inference). Moreover, there were no controls for the tissues, and all of the 

animals had died well before they were accessed by the investigators. During this time, it is highly likely 

that the tissue went through normal degenerative processes; therefore, it is impossible to know if the 

damage suggested was from anything other than normal tissue decay. It is also important to note that this 

work, while in the news, was never published in the scientific literature and that the histological analysis 

of the tissue has not been made available for examination by other experts.

The second study by André et al. (2011) exposed four cephalopod species (Loligo vulgaris, Sepia 

officinalis, Octopus vulgaris, and Illex coindetii) in a tank to sounds and then, after sacrifice of the 

animals, examined the statocysts (which are the ears of cephalopods). The authors show that there is 

some tissue degeneration, and they suggested that the sounds to which the animals were exposed caused 

the damage. However, there are very substantial problems with this study that open the results, and 

conclusions, to serious question.

First, the only controls provided were never subject to the same handling as the experimental animals. 

The only controls should be animals and tissues exposed to precisely the same conditions and procedures 

as the experimental other than for the variable in question, in this case the sound. However, this was not 

done in this study, and so it is very reasonable to suggest that the overall treatment of the experimental 

animals, including handling, being placed and maintained in the test tank, etc. could have been the cause 

of any effects noted. 

Second, cephalopods, even as indicated by the authors, are detectors of particle motion (just like 

fishes that do not have specializations to couple an air bubble to the ear). The signals to which the 

cephalopods were exposed were measured in pressure (something that the animals do not detect), and 

there was no measurement of particle motion. Since the exposure was done in a tank with relatively 

flexible walls, it is impossible to estimate the particle motion from pressure measurements. Thus, nothing 

in this experiment can relate the sound levels and any damage to the statocysts, even if the damage seen 

was related to the sounds.

Third, to generalize about invertebrates, it is important to note that the lack of any air bubbles (such 

as the fish swim bladder) that would be set in motion by high intensity sounds leads to the suggestion that 

there would be little or no impact of high intensity sounds on invertebrates (although, like fishes, if the 

invertebrates are very close to the source, the higher magnitude pressure wave from the source might have 

a general impact on survival).

Finally, the authors exposed the animals to sound for 2 hr, which is far longer than any exposure in 

the wild where the anthropogenic sources of concern, such as sonar and seismic airguns. These are 

generally moving sources, thus they would expose a slower moving (or stationary) animal for just a few 

minutes (if not less) rather than 2 hr. 
J-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

8.4. VESSEL NOISE AND FISH

A growing concern with regard to increases in anthropogenic noise comes from the increasing 

number of commercial ships that are found over large geographic areas as well inshore and the increasing 

number of small pleasure craft found inshore and in harbors. All vessels produce sound as a by-product 

of their operation, which is generally below 1 kHz. Source levels of vessels can range from 

<150 dB re 1 μPa to over 190 dB for the largest commercial vessels (Richardson et al., 1995; Hildebrand, 

2009). 

Vessel noise produces sounds in the general hearing range of fishes (Amoser et al., 2004). 

Continuous exposure (30 min) to boat noise has been shown to increase fish cortisol levels (stress 

response) (Wysocki et al., 2006). Temporary threshold shift has been associated with long-term, 

continuous exposure (2 hr), and masked hearing thresholds have also been recorded for fishes exposed to 

noise from small boats and ferries (Scholik and Yan, 2001; Vasconcelos et al., 2007). Additionally, 

vessels (i.e., trawlers, ferries, small boats) can change fish behavior (e.g., induce avoidance, alter 

swimming speed and direction, and alter schooling behavior) (Sarà et al., 2007). Studies do not indicate 

precisely which of these kinds of physical or behavioral effects may result from a single ship or from an 

aggregation of shipping activity, although it is important to bear in mind that the large number of 

commercial vessels, their nearly continuous presence in many nearshore areas, and projected increases in 

shipping trends. One of the most serious implications of this increase in shipping noise is the impact it 

may have in terms of masking sounds of biological origin and affecting communication between fishes.

The sounds produced by motor-driven ships causes herring to dive and swim away from the vessel 

(Mitson and Knudsen, 2003). Paradoxically, research vessels specially designed to reduce noise can 

result in an even greater behavioral reaction (Ona et al., 2007). Sand et al. (2008) have pointed out that 

passing ships produce high levels of infrasonic and low-frequency noise (>10-1,000 Hz), and that 

infrasonic frequencies may be responsible for the observed avoidance reactions.

9. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS – EFFECTS

The data obtained to date on effects of sound on fishes are very limited both in terms of the number of 

well-controlled studies and in the number of species tested. Moreover, there are significant limits in the 

range of data available for any particular type of sound source. While new data have become available on 

physiological effects of very intense pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 2011, 2012a,b; Casper et al., 2012a) 

and these data may be carefully extrapolated to other sound sources and species, the data are still very 

limited and comparable data are needed for other sources and species.

At the same time, physiological effects are probably not the major issue with regard to anthropogenic 

sound since most fishes will not be close enough to a sound source, and thereby exposed to high intensity 

sound, to show such effects. Instead, the biggest issues are related to effects on behavior since 

anthropogenic sources could, potentially, impact behavior of fishes over broad areas. Consideration of 

behavioral response to sound is complicated by needing to know more about not only the behavioral 

response to sound, but also the consequences in terms of the well being of affected fish of any observed 

behavioral responses. Yet, despite this clear need for understanding of behavioral effects, the extent of 

data is exceedingly limited and equivocal; it is not yet possible to make clear statements about effects of 

any particular sound source on the behavior of any species and the consequences of observed behavioral 

responses. 

The following sections briefly review and comment on the effects discussed earlier in this report. At 

the same time, it should be noted that after examining the complete literature on effects of sound on fishes 

(and turtles), an international panel of experts reached the conclusion that there are insufficient data to 

reach conclusions for most any sound source16. 

9.1. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Several general points can be made with reference to effects on fish physiology and mortality of 

intense sounds.

 

16This panel was co-chaired by Drs. Arthur Popper and Richard Fay, and a report is in preparation. The work was done under the 

auspices of the Standards Group of the Acoustical Society of America and was funded by several U.S. and international 

agencies and organizations. The report cannot be provided at this point, but will be provided as soon as possible.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-21

1. There is little evidence for immediate mortality other than when fishes are very close to 

intense sound sources, such as pile driving for very large piles. There are no data on any 

other sound source. Substantial study needs to be put into questions of immediate 

mortality.

2. Physiological effects (injury) that are sufficient to potentially kill fishes over time appear 

to have some correlation with the total energy of sound exposure. A few non-quantified 

studies have shown no damage to non-auditory tissues as a result of seismic airgun 

exposure (Popper et al., 2005; Song et al., 2008) or to any tissue after exposure to high 

intensity low-frequency and mid-frequency sonars (Halvorsen et al., 2006; Popper et al., 

2007). A quantified study of pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 2011, 2012a,b; Casper et al., 

2012a) demonstrates a range of effects that increase in likely impact on the animals, but 

the fishes seem to recover from these effects in a few days (Casper et al., 2011a). There 

are some data that suggest that some seismic airgun signals, under certain acoustic 

conditions, may damage sensory cells of the ears (McCauley et al., 2003), but that there 

is no effect on other species under different acoustic conditions (Song et al., 2008).

3. There are very few data documenting effects of any intense sound source on eggs and 

larvae in the open ocean. Far more data are needed before any preliminary conclusions 

can be reached on the effects of sound on eggs and larvae, and studies need to include, in 

addition to mortality, effects on growth and body tissues.

4. It is possible that exposure to loud sounds or increased background noise can result in 

increased stress levels and effects on the immune system. However, such effects have 

never been documented for fishes, and the only long-term study (Wysocki et al., 2007) of 

increased ambient noise showed no effect. It is critical to note that lack of effect may be 

more a function of not enough study rather than being the actual result. Future studies 

are needed to ask questions of such effects.

9.2. EFFECTS ON FISH BEHAVIOR

The more critical issue for effects of anthropogenic sound on fishes, however, is the effect on the 

behavior of wild animals and whether sound exposure will alter the behavior of a fish in a manner that 

will affect its way of living – such as where it tries to find food or how well it can find a mate. With the 

exception of just a few field studies, there are no data on behavioral effects, and most of these studies are 

very limited in scope and all are related to seismic airguns. Because of the limited ways in which 

behavior of fishes in these studies were “observed” (often by doing catch rates, which tell nothing about 

how fishes really react to a sound), there really are no data on the most critical questions regarding 

behavior.

Indeed, the fundamental questions are how fishes behave during and after exposure to a sound as 

compared to their “normal” pre-exposure behavior. This requires observations of a great number of 

animals over a large area for a considerable period of time before and after exposure to sound sources as 

well as during exposure. Only with such data is it possible to tell how sounds affect overall behavior

(including movement) of animals. These experiments are very difficult to do, require a large amount of 

resources, and are very expensive to conduct.

There is growing interest in the behavioral responses of fish to sound, primarily seismic sources, that 

may affect their catchability, thereby affecting the finances of commercial fishers.

9.3. INCREASED BACKGROUND SOUND

In addition to questions about how fish movements change in response to sounds, there are also 

questions as to whether any increase in background sound has an effect on more subtle aspects of 

behavior, such as the ability of a fish to hear a potential mate or predator or to glean information about its 

general environment. There is a body of literature that shows that the sound detection ability of fishes can 

be “masked” by the presence of other sounds within the hearing range of the fishes (reviewed in Fay and 

Megela-Simmons, 1999; Popper et al., 2003). Just as a human has trouble hearing another person as the 

room they are in gets noisier, it is likely that the same effect occurs for fishes (as well as all other 

animals). In effect, acoustic communication and orientation of fishes may potentially be restricted by 

noise regimes in their environment that are within the hearing range of the fishes. Perhaps this is the 
J-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

single most important area for future study since the masking effects of anthropogenic sounds could have 

a direct impact on the ability of fishes to hear sounds relevant to survival.

10. CURRENT CRITERIA

There is considerable national and international concern about effects of anthropogenic sound on 

marine organisms, including fishes (see Popper and Hawkins [2012]). However, despite the concerns, 

there is actually very little in the way of recommendations for regulatory levels of sound. In fact, the only 

known criteria, which are clearly labeled “interim,” arose on the U.S. West Coast out of concern about 

effects of pile driving on fishes (reviewed in Woodbury and Stadler, 2008; Stadler and Woodbury, 2009). 

These criteria are for the onset of physiological effects and say nothing about behavior.

The current interim criteria are dual in nature. That is, they state that physiological onset may occur 

if the peak sound level of a pile driving strike is 206 dB re 1 μPa or have an SELcum of 187 dB re 1μPa2

-s 

for fishes above 2 g (0.07 oz) or 183 dB re 1 μPa2

-s for fishes below 2 g (0.07 oz) (for explanation of 

these criteria, see also Popper et al. [2006] and Carlson et al. [2007]).

The levels for the current interim criteria were substantially criticized as not being based on the best 

available science at the time of their implementation (see Carlson et al. [2007] for detailed 

recommendations that were not used in setting the current interim criteria). Presently, based on a wide 

range of data that arose concurrent or subsequent to the current interim criteria, it is clear that the set 

levels, at least for cumulative exposure, are far too low and unrealistic for onset of physiological effects. 

The inadequacy of the interim criteria has now been documented in the recent quantified study on the 

effects of pile driving on the onset of physiological effects in Chinook salmon (Halvorsen et al., 2011. 

2012a; Casper et al., 2012a) and several other species (Halvorsen et al., 2012b). These studies, which 

demonstrated that an SELcum below approximately 207 dB re 1 μPa2

·s will not result in the onset of injury 

and that SELcum as high as 210 dB re 1 μPa2

·s produces physiological effects that are inconsequential 

(e.g., minor external bleeding). These data have been shown to be appropriate for five very different 

species, suggesting that there may be reasonably broad applicability of these values for setting future 

interim criteria.

At the same time, these results are only for pile driving. It is not clear which aspect(s) of intense 

sounds result in physiological onset, but it is likely that the rise time (onset time) of the signal may be of 

consequence. Thus, signals with slower rise times than pile driving may have even higher onset levels 

whereas sounds with faster rise times (e.g., from explosives) may have somewhat lower criteria.

However, since rise time, peak amplitude, and other signal characteristics are correlated, addition 

investigation will be needed to conduct studies that can estimate the contribution of each factor on injury 

risk.

One other factor that must be recognized with these criteria, which is built into the West Coast 

interim criteria (Stadler and Woodbury, 2009), is recovery time. That is, all tissues, when damaged, start 

to recover as soon as the stimulus is removed. This has been documented in mammals exposed to intense 

sounds (reviewed in Popper and Hastings, 2009b), and it is more than likely that the same thing happens 

for fishes. Indeed, Popper et al. (2005) showed recovery of hearing loss resulting from exposure to 

seismic airguns within 18 hr of the termination of exposure. Thus, if a fish is exposed to pile driving, the 

accumulation of exposure (the SELcum) is returned to zero (0) after 12 hr without exposure (Carlson et al., 

2007; Stadler and Woodbury, 2009).

This same restart of accumulation is important for any sound exposure condition. Thus, no matter 

whether a fish is exposed to pile driving, seismic airguns, sonars, etc., accumulated energy returns to zero 

after some period of non-exposure.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-23

11. REFERENCES CITED

Amoser, S. and F. Ladich. 2003. Diversity in noise-induced temporary hearing loss in otophysine fishes. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(4):2170-2179.

Amoser, S., E.L. Wysocki, and F. Ladich. 2004. Noise emission during the first powerboat race in an 

Alpine lake and potential impact on fish communities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:3789-3797.

André, M., M. Solé, M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, C. Quero, A. Mas, A. Lombarte, M. van der Schaar, 

M. López-Bejar, M. Morell, S. Zaugg, and L. Houégnigan. 2011. Low-frequency sounds induce 

acoustic trauma in cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment doi:10.1890/100124. 

Available at: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/AndreM_2011_FrontEcolEnviron.pdf. Accessed 

August 5, 2011.

Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., A. Ostrensky, M.R. Pie, U.A. Silva, and W.A. Boeger. 2005. Evaluating the 

impact of seismic prospecting on artisanal shrimp fisheries. Continental Shelf Research 

25:1720-1727.

Banner, A. and M. Hyatt. 1973. Effects of noise on eggs and larvae of two estuarine fishes. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 102(1):134-136. 

Bee, M.A. and E.N. Swanson. 2007. Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by road traffic 

noise. Animal Behaviour 74(6):1765-1776.

Bolle, L.J., C.A.F. de Jong, S.M. Bierman, P.J.G. van Beek, O.A. van Keeken, PW. Wessels, C.J.G. van 

Damme, H.V. Winter, D. de Haan, and R.P.A. Dekeling. 2012. Common sole larvae survive high 

levels of pile-driving sound in controlled exposure experiments. PLoS One. 2012; 7(3): e33052. 

Published online 2012 March 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033052. 

Booman, C., H. Dalen, H. Heivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren, and K. Toklum. 1996. Effekter av 

luftkanonskyting pa egg, larver og ynell. Havforskningsinstituttet, Issn 0071-5638. 

Boudreau, M., S.C. Courtenay, and K. Lee, eds. 2009. Proceedings of a workshop held 23 January 2007 

at the Gulf Fisheries Center. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab: An update to the 

September 2004 review. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2836. 29 pp. Available at: 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/337176.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Brumm, H. and H. Slabbekoorn. 2005. Acoustic communication in noise. Advances in Behavior 

35:151-209.

Budelmann, B.U. 1992. Hearing by crustacea. In: Webster, D.B., R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. 

Evolutionary biology of hearing. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 131-139. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2001. Pile installation demonstration project, 

fisheries impact assessment. PIDP EA 012081, Caltrans Contract 04A0148. San Francisco - 

Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010a. Effects of pile driving sound on juvenile 

steelhead. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, Seattle, WA.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010b. Necropsy and histopathology of steelhead 

trout exposed to steel pile driving at the Mad River Bridges, U.S. Highway 101, July 2009. Prepared 

by Gary D. Marty, DVM, Ph.D., Fish Pathology Services, Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada.

Carlson, T.J., M.C. Hastings, and A.N. Popper. 2007. Update on recommendations for revised interim 

sound exposure criteria for fish during pile driving activities. Memorandum dated December 21, 

2007, to Suzanne Theiss, California Department of Transportation and Paul Wagner, Washington 

Department of Transportation.

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 

76:101-108.
J-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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.

Casper, B.C., A.N. Popper, F. Matthews, T.J. Carlson, and M.B. Halvorsen. 2012a. Recovery of 

barotrauma injuries in Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha from exposure to pile driving 

sound. PLoS ONE, 7(6): e39593. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039593. http://www.plosone.org/

article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039593?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=f

eed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FEcology+(PLoS+ONE+Alerts%3A+Ecology). Accessed 

August 20, 2013.

Casper, B.M., M.B. Halvorsen, and A.N. Popper. 2012b. Are sharks even bothered by a noisy 

environment? Pp. 93-97. In: Popper, A.N. and A.D. Hawkins, eds. The effects of noise on aquatic 

life. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

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.

Corwin, J.T. 1981. Postembryonic production and aging in inner ear hair cells in sharks. J. Comp. 

Neurol. 201:541-553.

Culik, B.M., S. Koschinski, N. Tregenza, and G.M. Ellis. 2001. Reactions of harbour porpoises 

Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

211:255-260. 

de Jong, C.A.F., P.J.G. van Beek, M.A. Ainslie, L.J. Bolle, O.A. van Keeken, C.J.G. van Damme, 

H.V. Winter, and D. de Haan. 2011. Testing mortality of fish larvae due to simulated offshore piling 

noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(4):2437. 

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. 

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. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125:554-564.

Dooling, R.J., E.W. West, and M.R. Leek. 2009. Conceptual and computation models of the effects of 

anthropogenic sound on birds. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 31(pt 1). 

Dwyer, W.P., W. Fredenberg, and D.A. Erdahl. 1993. Influence of electroshock and mechanical shock 

on survival of trout eggs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:839-843.

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: 

Springer-Verlag. Pp. 243-255. 

Fay, R.R. 1988. Hearing in vertebrates: A psychophysics fatabook. 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: 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: Springer-Verlag. 

Pp. 269-318. 

Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner ears and processing. 

Hear. Res. 149:1-10.

Fish, J.F. and G.C. Offutt. 1972. Hearing thresholds from toadfish, Opsanu tau, measured in the 

laboratory and field. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51:1318-1321.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-25

Guerra, A., A.F. Gonzalez, F. Rocha, and J. Gracia Ecobiomar. 2004. Calamares gigantes varados. 

Victimas de exploraciones acústicas. Investigación y Ciencia July:35-37.

Halvorsen, M.B., L.E. Wysocki, and A.N. Popper. 2006. Effects of high-intensity sonar on fish. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119:3283.

Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, C.M. Woodley, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2011. Predicting and 

mitigating hydroacoustic impacts on fish from pile installations. NCHRP Research Results Digest 

363, Project 25-28, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research 

Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Internet website: http://www.trb.org/

Publications/Blurbs/166159.aspx. Accessed August 20,2013.

Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, C.M. Woodley, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2012a. Threshold for 

onset of injury in Chinook salmon from exposure to impulsive pile driving sounds. PLoS ONE, 7(6) 

e38968. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038968. Internet website: http://www.plosone.org/article/

info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038968. Accessed August 20,2013.

Halvorsen, M.B., B.C. Casper, F. Matthews, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2012b. Effects of exposure 

to pile driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia, and hogchoker. Proceedings of the Royal 

Society B. 279, 4705-4714 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.154. Internet website: 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10/03/rspb.2012.1544.full.pdf+html. 

Accessed August 20, 2013. 

Hastings, M.C. 2008. Coming to terms with the effects of ocean noise on marine animals. Acoustics 

Today 4(2):22-34.

Hastings, M.C. 2009. A model for prediction of auditory tissue damage in fish. Final Report, Rev. 1. 

Submitted to the Joint Industry Program (JIP) on E&P Sound and Marine Life.

Hastings, M.C. and J. Miskis-Olds. 2011. Shipboard assessment of hearing sensitivity of tropical fishes 

immediately after exposure to seismic air gun emissions at Scott reef. In: Popper, A.N. and 

A. Hawkins, eds. Effects of noise on aquatic life. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 

LLC (in press).

Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of sound on fish. California Department of 

Transportation Contract 43A0139 Task Order, 1. Internet website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/

hq/env/bio/files/Effects_of_Sound_on_Fish23Aug05.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Hastings, M.C., A.N. Popper, J.J. Finneran, and P.J. Lanford. 1996. Effects of low-frequency underwater 

sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. J. Acoust. 

Soc. Am. 99(3):1759-1766.

Hastings, M.C., C.A. Reid, C.C. Grebe, R.L. Hearn, and J.G. Colman. 2008. The effects of seismic 

airgun noise on the hearing sensitivity of tropical reef fishes at Scott Reef, Western Australia. 

Underwater Noise Measurement, Impact and Mitigation, Proceedings.

Hildebrand, J.A. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar. Ecol. 

Prog. Ser. 395:5-20.

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: 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.

Jensen, J.O.T. and D.F. Alderdice. 1983. Changes in mechanical shock sensitivity of coho salmon 

(Oncorhyncuus kisutch) eggs during incubation. Aquaculture 32:303-312. 

Jensen, J.O.T. and D.F. Alderdice. 1989. Comparison of mechanical shock sensitivity of eggs of five 

Pacific salmon (Oncorhyncus) species and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Aquaculture 

78:163-181.
J-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

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.

Jorgenson, J.K. and E.C. Gyselman. 2009. Hydroacoustic measurements of the behavioral response of 

arctic riverine fishes to seismic airguns. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126:1598-1606.

Jørgensen, R., K.K. Olsen, I.B. Falk-Petersen, and P. Kanapthippilai. 2005. Investigations of potential 

effects of low frequency sonar signals on survival, development and behaviour of fish larvae and 

juveniles. The Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø 

Norway.

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. J. Fish Biol. 

76:1825-1840.

Karlsen, H.E. 1992. Infrasound sensitivity in the plaice (Pleuronectes plattessa). Journal of 

Experimental Biology 171:173-187.

Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to low frequency sound in 

downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. Journal of Fish Biology 45:227-233.

Kostyuchenko, L.P. 1972. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs 

in the Black Sea. Hydrobiologia 9:45-46.

Kvadsheim, P.H. and E.M. Sevaldsen. 2005. The potential impact of 1-8 kHz active sonar on stocks of 

juvenile fish during sonar exercises. FFI/Report-2005/01027.

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: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 95-127. 

Lagardère, J.-P. 1982. Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. 

Marine Biology 71:177-185. 

Lagardère, J.-P. and M.R. Régnault. 1980. Influence du niveau sonore de bruit ambient sur la 

métabolisme de Crangon crangon (Decapoda: Natantia) en élevage. Marine Biology 57:157-164.

Laiolo, P. 2010. The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation. Biological 

Conservation 143:1635-1645.

Leis, J.M., B.N. Carson-Ewart, A.C. Hay, and D.H. Cato. 2003. Coral-reef sounds enable nocturnal 

navigation by some reef-fish larvae in some places and at some times. Journal of Fish Biology 

63724–737.

Le Prell, G., D. Henderson, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. 2011. Noise-induced hearing loss: 

Scientific advances. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC (in press). 

Løkkeborg, S., E. Ona, A. Vold, and A. Salthaug. 2011. Effects of sounds from seismic air guns on fish 

behavior and catch rates. In: Popper, A.N. and A. Hawkins, eds. Effects of noise on aquatic life. 

New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC (in press).

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. and A.N. Popper. 2004. Quantitative changes in the otolithic organs of the inner ear during 

the settlement period in European hake (Merluccius merluccius). Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

267:233-240.

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.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-27

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.

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. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109:3048-3054.

Mann, D.A., A.N. Popper, and B. Wilson. 2005. Pacific herring hearing does not include ultrasound. 

Biology Letters 1:158-161.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish 

ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(1):638-642. 

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. J. Exp. Biol. 213:1567-1578.

Mitson, R.B. and H.P. Knudsen. 2003. Causes and effects of underwater noise on fish abundance 

estimation. Aquatic Living Resources 16:255-263.

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: 

sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure. Journal of Experimental Biology 

213:3748-3759.

Mueller-Blenkle, C., P.K. McGregor, A.B. Gill, M.H. Andersson, J. Metcalfe, V. Bendall, P. Sigray, 

D.T. Wood, and F. Thomsen. 2010. Effects of pile-driving noise on the behaviour of marine fish. 

COWRIE Ref: Fish 06-08, Technical Report 31st March 2010. Internet website: 

http://m.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/354807/2010-03%20Effects%20of%20pile%20driving%20

noise%20on%20fish.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Myrberg, A.A., Jr. 2001. The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes 

60:31-45.

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. 

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.

Nelson, J.S. 2006. Fishes of the world. 4th Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

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.

Ona, E., O.R. Godø, N.O. Handegard, V. Hjellvik, R. Patel, and G. Pedersen. 2007. Silent research 

vessels are not quiet. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 121(4):EL145-EL150. Internet website: 

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JASMAN0001210000040EL1

45000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1121/1.2710741&prog=normal&bypassSSO=1. Accessed 

August 5, 2011.

Parris, K.M., M. Velik-Lord, and J.M.A. North. 2009. Frogs call at a higher pitch in traffic noise. 

Ecology and Society 14(1):25.
J-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1987. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on fishing success. Report prepared by Battelle/Marine Research Laboratory for the Marine Minerals 

Service, United States Department of the Interior. Contract Number 14-12-0001-30273.

Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on behavior of captive rockfish (Sebastes ssp). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

49:1343-1356.

Pickering, A.D. 1981. Stress and fishes. New York: Academic Press.

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.

Popper, A.N. 1980. Scanning electron microscopic studies of the sacculus and lagena in several deep-sea 

fishes. Am. J. Anat. 157:115-136.

Popper, A.N. 2003. Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries 28(10):24-31.

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 2010. Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hear. Res. 273(1-2):25-36.

Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009a. The effects on fish of human-generated (anthropogenic) sound. 

Integrative Zool. 4:43-52.

Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009b. Effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J. Fish 

Biol. 75:455-498.

Popper, A.N. and A. Hawkins, eds. 2012. The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. Springer 

Science+Business Media, LLC, New York. 

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 S. Løkkeborg. 2008. Effects of anthropogenic sound on fish. Bioacoustics 

17:214-217.

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: Springer Science + Business Media, 

LLC.

Popper, A.N., M. Salmon, and K.W. Horch. 2001. Acoustic detection and communication by decapod 

crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187:83-89.

Popper, A.N., R.R. Fay, C. Platt, and O. Sand. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of 

teleost fishes. In: Collin, S.P. and N.J. Marshall, eds. Sensory processing in aquatic environments. 

New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 3-38. 

Popper, A.N., M.E. Smith, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, A.O. MacGillivray, M.E. Austin, and D.A. Mann. 

2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. 

Am. 117:3958-3971. 

Popper, A.N., T.J. Carlson, A.D. Hawkins, B.L. Southall, and R.L. Gentry. 2006. Interim criteria for 

injury of fish exposed to pile driving operations: A white paper. Internet website: 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/84A6313A-9297-42C9-BFA6-750A691E1DB3/0/

BA_PileDrivingInterimCriteria.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Popper, A.N., M.B. Halvorsen, E. Kane, D.D. Miller, M.E. Smith, P. Stein, and L.E. Wysocki. 2007. 

The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 

122:623-635. 

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). J. Comp. Neurol. 475:531-539. Internet 

website: http://csi.whoi.edu/sites/default/files/literature/Full%20Text_21.pdf. Accessed August 5, 

2011.
Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-29

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.

Remage-Healey, L., D.P. Nowacek, and A.H. Bass. 2006. Dolphin foraging sounds suppress calling and 

elevate stress hormone levels in a prey species, the Gulf toadfish. Journal of Experimental Biology 

209:4444-4451.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. 

New York: Academic Press. 

Rogers, P.H. and M. Cox. 1988. Underwater sound as a biological stimulus. In: Atema, A., R.R. Fay, 

A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga, eds. Sensory biology of aquatic animals. New York: SpringerVerlag. Pp. 131-149. 

Sand, O. and H.E. Karlsen. 1986. Detection of infrasound by the Atlantic cod. J. Exp. Biol. 

125:197-204.

Sand, O., H.E. Karlsen, and F.R. Knudsen. 2008. Comment on silent research vessels are not quiet. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 123:1831-1833.

Sarà, G., J.M. Dean, D. D’Amato, G. Buscaino, A. Oliveri1, 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. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 331:243–253.

Scholik, A.R. and H.Y. Yan. 2001. Effects of underwater noise on auditory sensitivity of a cyprinid fish. 

Hearing Research 152:17-24.

Scholik. A.R. and H.Y. Yan. 2002. Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead 

minnow, Pimephales promelas. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:203-209. 

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.

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.

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 

67143-150.

Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper. 2004a. Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in 

goldfish (Carassius auratus). Journal of Experimental Biology 207:427-435.

Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper. 2004b. Acoustical stress and hearing sensitivity in fishes: 

does the linear threshold shift hypothesis hold water? Journal of Experimental Biology 

207:3591-3602.

Smith, M.E., A.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.

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. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 

124:1360-1366.

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, 

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. 

Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 

33:411-521.
J-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Stadler, J.H. and D.P. Woodbury. 2009. Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of 

new hydroacoustic criteria. Inter-Noise 2009.

Stephenson, J.R., A.J. Gingerich, R.S. Brown, B.D. Pflugrath, Z. Deng, T.J. Carlson, M.J. Langeslay, 

M.L. Ahmann, R.L. Johnson, and A.G. Seaburg. 2010. Assessing barotrauma in neutrally and 

negatively buoyant juvenile salmonids exposed to simulated hydro-turbine passage using a mobile 

aquatic barotrauma laboratory. Fisheries Res. 106:271-278.

Sverdrup, A., E. Kjellsby, P.G. Krueger, R. Floys, F.R. Knudsen, P.S. Enger, G. Serck-Hanssen, and, 

K.B. Helle. 1994. Effects of experimental seismic shock on vasoactivity of arteries, integrity of the 

vascular endothelium and on primary stress hormones of the Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish 

Biology 45:973-995. 

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.

Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of underwater sound. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vasconcelos, R.O. and F. Ladich. 2008. Development of vocalization, auditory sensitivity and acoustic 

communication in the Lusitanian toadfish Halobatrachus didactyllus. Journal of Experimental 

Biology 211:502-509.

Vasconcelos, R.O., M.C.P. Amorim, and F. Ladich. 2007. Effects of ship noise on the detectability of 

communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. Journal of Experimental Biology 210: 2104-2112.

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 air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research 

21:1005-1027.

Webb, J.F., R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. 2008. Fish bioacoustics. New York: Springer Science + 

Business Media, LLC.

Woodbury, D. and J. Stadler. 2008. A proposed method to assess physical injury to fishes from 

underwater sound produced during pile driving. Bioacoustics 17(1-3):289-291.

Wright, K.J., D.M. Higgs, J. Belanger, and J.M. Leis. 2005. Auditory and olfactory abilities of 

pre-settlement larvae and post-settlement juveniles of a coral reef damselfish (Pisces: Pomacentridae). 

Marine Biology 147:1425-1434. Internet website: http://www.famer.unsw.edu.au/publications/

Wright2005.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2011.

Wysocki L.E. and F. Ladich. 2005. Hearing in fishes under noise conditions. Journal of the Association 

for Research in Otolaryngology 6:28-36.

Wysocki, L.E., F. Ladich, and J. Dittami. 2006. Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater 

fishes. Biological Conservation 128:501-508.

Wysocki, L.E., J.W. Davidson, III, M.E. Smith, A.S. Frankel, W.T. Ellison, P.M. Mazik, A.N. Popper, 

and J. Bebak. 2007. Effects of aquaculture production noise on hearing, growth, and disease 

resistance of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture 272:687-697.

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: Springer-Verlag. 

Pp. 363-411. 
APPENDIX K 

 

COOPERATING AGENCY

Cooperating Agency K-3
K-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-5
K-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-7
K-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-9
K-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-11
K-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-13
K-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-15
K-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-17
K-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS
Cooperating Agency K-19

APPENDIX L 

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS

Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES OVERVIEW ...................... L-1

1.1. Construction of Comment Index............................................................................................. L-1

1.2. Comment Review Protocol ..................................................................................................... L-2

1.3. Reviewing Comment Responses............................................................................................. L-4

2. COMMENT INDEX......................................................................................................................... L-5

3. COMMENT SUMMARY AND RESPONSES.............................................................................. L-21

4. COMMENTS REQUIRING A DETAILED TECHNICAL RESPONSE...................................... L-31

5. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................. L-217

Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-v 

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table L-1. Categories for Submission IDs in the Comment Index....................................................... L-1

Table L-2. Subcategories for Submission IDs in the Comment Index Indicating the Manner 

Received.............................................................................................................................. L-2

Table L-3. Comment Code General Categories.................................................................................... L-3

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes....................................................................................... L-5

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Responses.................................................................... L-22

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Responses for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical 

Responses.......................................................................................................................... L-31

Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-1 

1. DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

OVERVIEW

To initiate the public review and comment period on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) took the following actions: they 

(1) published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (Federal Register, 2012a) on March 30, 

2012, announcing a 60-day comment period that ended on May 30, 2012; (2) mailed a special public 

notice that reported availability of the Draft Programmatic EIS and how to comment to all of the groups 

and agencies identified in Chapter 5.4 of the Draft Programmatic EIS; (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 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 following newspapers that 

served local media markets; The Florida Times-Union, Savannah Morning News, The Post and Courier, 

The Virginian 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 Region’s Internet website

(http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx). 

During the comment period BOEM extended the comment period by 30 days, ending the comment 

period on July 2, 2012 (Federal Register, 2012b), per commenter requests. On June 4, 2012, all parties 

who received initial notification of document availability by email were re-contacted and advised of the 

comment period extension.

All comments received during the public comment period for the Draft Programmatic EIS have been

considered during preparation of this Final Programmatic EIS. Public comments on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS were received by mail, by email via ggeis@boem.gov, and in oral and written form at 

the 15 public hearings conducted by BOEM at eight locations along the Atlantic coast adjacent to the 

Area of Interest. A total of 55,295 individual comment submissions were received during the public 

comment period and can be found on the BOEM website (http://www.boem.gov/oil-and-gas-energyprogram/GOMR/GandG.aspx). The review and response process is intended to ensure that improvements 

are made to the Final Programmatic EIS for its use as a decision-making document through the inclusion 

of new or substantive information, or to explain the rationale for how the evaluation was carried out.

1.1. CONSTRUCTION OF COMMENT INDEX

All comments received during the public comment period were placed into a comment index 

(Section 2) to provide accessibility, a full understanding of who provided comments, and how the 

comments were addressed. A document identification number called the Submission ID was assigned to 

each comment received (e.g., a letter, an email, or a set of comments given during a public hearing). 

Submission IDs were assigned to each comment based on their category and manner that the comment 

was received, and were then consecutively numbered; see Tables L-1 and L-2 for a listing of categories 

and subcategories of the Submission IDs. Once the Submission ID was assigned and entered into the 

Comment Index, each comment was thoroughly reviewed following the protocol described in Section 1.2. 

Table L-1 

Categories for Submission IDs in the Comment Index

Category Code Category Category Definition

EO Elected Official Government elected official at any level

FA Federal Agency U.S. Federal agency

SA State Agency State agency

LA Local Agency County, municipality, city, agency

I Industry Entity that is involved in the marine or G&G industry

NGO Non-Governmental Organization Non-profit, voluntary citizens group

P General Public General member of the public
L-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-2 

Subcategories for Submission IDs in the Comment Index Indicating the Manner Received

Subcategory 

Code Subcategory Subcategory Definition

E Email Email comments received through BOEM website

EF Emailed Form Letter Formulaic letters set up as email campaigns on the websites of 

10 environmental non-governmental organizations

L Letter Letter mailed in to BOEM

PHA Public Hearings in

Annapolis, Maryland

Comment received during Annapolis meeting. Includes 

testimony or written comment

PHAC Public Hearings in 

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Comment received during Atlantic City meeting. Includes 

testimony or written comment

PHC Public Hearings in

Charleston, South Carolina

Comment received during Charleston meeting. Includes 

testimony or written comment

PHJ Public Hearings in

Jacksonville, Florida

Comment received during Jacksonville meeting. Includes 

testimony or written comment

PHN Public Hearings in 

Norfolk, Virginia

Comment received during Norfolk meeting. Includes testimony 

or written comment

PHS Public Hearings in

Savannah, Georgia

Comment received during Savannah meeting. Includes testimony 

or written comment

PHWDE Public Hearings in

Wilmington, Delaware

Comment received during Wilmington, DE meeting. Includes 

testimony or written comment

PHWNC Public Hearings in

Wilmington, North Carolina

Comment received during Wilmington, NC meeting. Includes 

testimony or written comment

1.2. COMMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL

Each comment received was thoroughly reviewed to determine if the comment contained general and 

similar concerns (including form emails) or if the comment contained specific comments requiring 

detailed technical responses and/or changes to the Final Programmatic EIS.

If the comment expressed a general concern that was similar in content to other comments, it was 

assigned a Comment Code (Table L-3) to categorize the general topic of the comment and then entered 

into the Comment Index (Section 2, Table L-4). The 69 alpha-numeric Comment Codes were developed 

and defined based on comments received during the scoping period for the Programmatic EIS and were 

expanded based on specific, common comments received during the comment period for the Draft 

Programmatic EIS (Table L-3). Placing comments into categories allows similar concerns to be 

addressed with an appropriate common response and avoids repeating the same response numerous times. 

Section 3 summarizes the general comments that have been grouped together and responded to in a 

general and concise manner. Table L-5 provides the Comment Summary and Response for each 

Comment Code. 

If the comment contained specific comments or recommendations requiring detailed technical 

responses and/or changes to the Programmatic EIS, subject-matter experts reviewed it and provided a 

response specifically addressing the comment, and changes, if required, were incorporated into the 

Programmatic EIS. Section 4, Table L-6 provides a tabular listing of specific comments provided in 

detailed submissions, the expert response, and changes made in the Programmatic EIS, if any. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-3 

Table L-3 

Comment Code General Categories

Comment Code Comment Code Topic

A. Position on Proposed Action

A-1 In favor of the proposed action (Supports Alternative A)

A-2 Opposed to the proposed action

A-3 Neutral

A-4 Supports Alternative B

A-5 Supports Alternative C

A-6 Opposition to future oil and gas activities, without any specific reference to G&G activities

B. Regulatory Process

B-1 Fast and efficient regulatory process

B-2 Balanced energy policy

B-3 State permitting

B-4 Request extension of the public comment period for draft Programmatic EIS

B-5 Draft Programmatic EIS is adequate

B-6 Require local/State support

B-7 Lack of availability of Draft Programmatic EIS

B-8 Cooperating agency issues

B-9 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

B-10 National Environmental Policy Act

B-11 Executive Order 12114

B-12 Coastal Zone Management Act

B-13 Endangered Species Act

B-14 Marine Mammal Protection Act

B-15 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

B-16 Clean Air Act

B-17 Clean Water Act

B-18 National Historic Preservation Act

B-19 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

B-20 Executive Order 13547

B-21 Rivers and Harbors Act

B-22 National Marine Sanctuaries Act

B-23 Survey Data Availability

C. Alternatives Analysis

C-1 Redefine Purpose and Need

C-2 Issues with screening criteria

C-3 Other issues with alternatives

C-4 Include the North Atlantic Planning Area

C-5 Additional information needed for alternatives

C-6 New alternatives

D. Impact Producing Factor

D-1 Active acoustic sound sources

D-2 Vessel and equipment noise

D-3 Vessel traffic

D-4 Aircraft traffic and noise

D-5 Vessel exclusion zones

D-6 Vessel wastes
L-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-3. Comment Code General Categories (continued).

Comment Code Comment Code Topic

D-7 Trash and debris

D-8 Seafloor disturbance

D-9 Onshore support activities

D-10 Fuel spills

E. Resource Areas

E-1 Benthic communities

E-2 Marine mammals

E-3 Sea turtles

E-4 Marine and coastal birds

E-5 Fish resources and essential fish habitat

E-6 Threatened or endangered fish species

E-7 Commercial fisheries

E-8 Recreational fisheries

E-9 Recreational resources

E-10 Archeological resources

E-11 Marine protected areas

E-12 Other marine uses

E-13 Human resources and land use

E-14 General environmental resource

F. Socioeconomics

F-1 Oil and gas infrastructure

F-2 Military activities

F-3 Regional sand sources

F-4 Socioeconomics (general)

G. Mitigation Measures

G-1 Avoidance and minimization

G-2 Expanded Time-Area Closure for North Atlantic Right Whales (NARW)

G-3 Time-Area Closure for Nesting Sea Turtles

G-4 Separation between Simultaneous Seismic Airgun Surveys

G-5 Passive Acoustic Monitoring

G-6 General Mitigation

1.3. REVIEWING COMMENT RESPONSES

To review a response provided for a specific comment, readers should first refer to Table L-4. 

Commenters are listed under the heading associated with their category (i.e., elected official, Federal 

agency, State agency, local agency, industry, non-governmental organization, or general public). The far 

right column in Table L-4 provides the Comment Code(s) assigned to each comment if the comment was 

classified as a general comment. Responses to general comments are provided in Table L-5; if the 

comment required a detailed technical response, the reader is referred to Table L-6. 
L-5 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

2. COMMENT INDEX

Table L-4 

List of Comment Category Codes

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

Elected Officials (sorted by last name)

EO-L-3 Berger Phil North Carolina Senate See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHC-1 Campbell Paul G. State Senator See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHAC-2 Fuller Janice Behalf of Representative Frank Pallone A-2

EO-PHWNC-2 Goolsby Thom Senator, North Carolina Senate See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHC-2 Horne Jenny State Representative See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHJ-1 Hutton Marge County Commission, District 3 See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHC-3 Johnston Ann Mayor, Town of St. George See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHWNC-3 Rabon Bill Senator, North Carolina Senate See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-L-2 Rigell Scott U.S. House of Representatives See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHAC-1 Shultz (Smoltz) Frank Behalf of Senator Menendez See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHWNC-1 Thompson Jason Newer Hanover County Commissioner See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-PHN-1 Wagner Frank Virginia State Senator (District 7) See detailed technical response in Table L-6

EO-L-1 Warner Mark U.S. Senate See detailed technical response in Table L-6

Federal Agency Representatives (sorted by Agency)

FA-E-4 Herman Melissa Marine Mammal Commission, Behalf of Timothy 

J. Ragen, Ph.D. See detailed technical response in Table L-6

FA-E-3 Barnett Anita National Park Service See detailed technical response in Table L-6

FA-L-1 Laws Ben NOAA See detailed technical response in Table L-6

FA-E-1 Wilson Joseph U.S. Army Corps of Engineers See detailed technical response in Table L-6

FA-L-2 Bromm Susan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency See detailed technical response in Table L-6

FA-E-2 Johnson Tamara U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service See detailed technical response in Table L-6

State Agency Representatives (sorted by Agency)

SA-E-6 Kelly Brian Delaware Department of Natural Resources See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-E-2 Tucker Debby

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

NE District Clearinghouse Review, Florida Dept. 

of State, Florida Geological Survey, Florida Bureau 

of Beaches and Coastal Systems

See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-L-3 Clark Chris Georgia Department of Natural Resources See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-E-4 Moore Kelie Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal 

Resources Division See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-E-7 Bast Cecilia Maryland Department of Natural Resources See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-PHA-1 Flemming Matthew Maryland Department of Natural Resources See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-L-4 Moore Christopher Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council See detailed technical response in Table L-6
L-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

SA-E-3 Creech William E. H. NC Department of Administration, Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-L-2 Neale Barbara South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-E-5 Davies Jaclyn State of New Jersey See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-E-1 Christopher Evie Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and 

Energy See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-L-1 Weeks Richard Virginia Department of Environmental Quality See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-PHN-2 Villanueva Ron Virginia House of Delegates See detailed technical response in Table L-6

SA-PHN-1 Domenech Doug Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources See detailed technical response in Table L-6

Local Agency Representatives (sorted by Agency)

LA-E-2 Crumpler Meg City of Charleston, SC on behalf of the Mayor See detailed technical response in Table L-6

LA-PHN-1 Pennington Brian City of Norfolk See detailed technical response in Table L-6

LA-PHN-2 Matthias Robert City of Virginia Beach See detailed technical response in Table L-6

LA-E-1 Brewer Jan St. Johns County Florida See detailed technical response in Table L-6

Industry Representatives (sorted by Organization)

I-PHA-1 Hopkins Holly American Petroleum Institute (API) A-1

I-E-12 Radford Andy American Petroleum Institute (API) See detailed technical response in Table L-6

I-E-1 Hala Bob Brüel & Kjaer - Environment Management 

Solutions (EMS) G-6 

I-E-14 Graham Mary Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce A-1, F-4

I-E-10 Suthard Beau Coastal Planning & Engineering (CPE) See detailed technical response in Table L-6

I-E-13 Dubey Paul W. Conoco Phillips, Behalf of Richard Lunam A-1

I-PHJ-1 Doyle Kevin Consumer Energy Alliance A-1, F-4

I-PHJ-7 McMinn Jineane Corporate Development of Associated Industries of 

Florida A-1, F-4 

I-PHAC-1 Lovgren James Fisherman’s Dock Corp; Point Pleasant E-1, E-2, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-14, F-4, G-5

I-PHJ-3 Hamilton Eric Florida Petroleum Council A-1, F-4

I-PHN-3 McNeilan Sally Fugro Geotechnics and Survey A-1, G-1

I-E-6 Kaelin Jeff Garden State Seafood Assoc. A-2, D-1, E-2, E-7

I-PHS-2 Hamling Jeff Georgia Chamber of Commerce A-1, A-6

I-PHS-1 Cobb Richard Georgia Petroleum Council A-1, F-4

I-PHAC-5 Neugebauer Thomas E. IAGC (TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company) A-1, C-4, E-2, E-6, G-4, G-5

I-PHJ-6 Padon Matthew International Associations of Geophysical 

Contractors A-1, C-4, E-2, G-4, G-5 

I-PHJ-5 Kaufman David Jacksonville Port Authority A-1

I-E-4 Kohrn Bruce Lockheed Martin MS2 A-1, E-2, E-14

I-PHAC-4 Ross Scott New Jersey Petroleum Council A-1

I-PHAC-3 Drulis Michael New Jersey Society of Economic Development A-1

I-PHAC-2 Egenton Michael New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce A-1

I-PHJ-2 Boe William none provided A-1
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-7

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued). 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

I-PHJ-4 Hamilton Bill none provided A-2

I-E-8 Findley Madeleine North American Submarine Cable Association See detailed technical response in Table L-6

I-E-2 Salley Frank North American Submarine Cable Association See detailed technical response in Table L-6

I-PHWNC-2 Witherspoon Bill North Carolina Petroleum Institute A-1

I-E-7 Saydlowski John Nucor Steel Berkeley A-1

I-E-5 Pfeister Doug Offshore Wind Development Coalition See detailed technical response in Table L-6

I-PHWDE-1 Pfeister Doug Offshore Wind Development Coalition See detailed technical response in Table L-6

I-E-9 Bodge Kevin Olsen Associates See detailed technical response in Table L-6

I-PHC-1 Novinger 

(Norbinger) Cathy Palmetto AgriBusiness Council A-1, F-4 

I-E-3 O'Neil Wanda Piedmont Natural Gas A-1

I-PHC-5 Winkles David SC Farm Bureau A-1

I-L-1 Rawl Otis South Carolina Chamber of Commerce A-1

I-PHC-2 Clamp Kay South Carolina Petroleum Company A-1, F-4

I-PHWNC-1 Brown Mike Southeast Energy Alliance A-1

I-PHC-3 Carnevale Chris Southern Alliance for Clean Energy C-6, D-3, E-2, E-3, E-12

I-PHC-4 DeScherer Chris Southern Environmental Law Center A-5, C-3, D-1, E-2, E-7, F-4

I-E-11 Wade Foster Statoil A-1

I-PHN-2 DuVal Barry Virginia Chamber of Commerce A-1, F-4

I-PHN-1 Ward Mike Virginia Petroleum Council A-1, E-2, F-1

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Representatives (sorted by Organization)

NGO-L-7 Brunswig Norman Audubon South Carolina A-5, B-23, E-7, E-8, E-9, F-4

NGO-PHAC-10 Shanley (Shadley) Georgina (Regina) C.U.R.E. A-5

NGO-PHS-1 Grainey Karen Center for a Sustainable Coast and Southern 

Environmental Law Firm A-5, E-2, E-7 

NGO-E-8 Tozzi Jim Center for Regulatory Effectiveness See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-EF-8 Numerous (78) Numerous (78) Chesapeake Climate Action A-2, A-5

NGO-PHN-5 Wiegard Hannah Chesapeake Climate Action Network A-2, A-5

NGO-PHAC-5 Grant Joyce Citizens for Oceanfront Preservation D-1

NGO-L-2 Merrill Denver Citizens for Sound Conservation A-1

NGO-PHC-1 Merrill Denver Citizens for South Conservation A-1

NGO-EF-3 Numerous (11) Numerous (11) Clean Energy.org, Southern Alliance for Clean 

Energy A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-14 

NGO-PHAC-1 Zipf Cindy Clean Ocean Action D-1, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-14

NGO-PHAC-9 Stanish Egan Clean Ocean Action A-5, E-2, E-5, E-12

NGO-PHAC-13 McCue Zach (Jack) Clean Ocean Action A-5

NGO-PHAC-15 Stafford (Saffert) Heather Clean Ocean Action See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-E-6 Davis Hamilton Coastal Conservation League A-2, B-23, C-3, C-5

NGO-EF-4 Numerous (2,496) Numerous (2,496) Consumer Energy Alliance A-1, F-4

NGO-E-3 Goggin Brenna Delaware Nature Society A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-14, F-1

NGO-EF-2 Numerous (1,174) Numerous (1,174) Energy Nation A-1, F-4
L-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

NGO-PHJ-2 Paradise Brian Florida Chapter Sierra Club A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-9, F-4

NGO-L-5 Owen Gledhill Sarah Florida Wildlife Federation A-5, D-1, E-2, E-7

NGO-EF-9 Numerous (696) Numerous (696) Food and Water Watch A-2

NGO-PHAC-7 Davis Rachel Dawn Food and Water Watch A-2

NGO-PHJ-1 Matthaei Marcella Friends of Metenzas A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7

NGO-L-6 Allgood Beth International Fund for Animal Welfare A-5, D-1, E-2, G-6

NGO-PHAC-6 Dean Sheila Marine Mammal Stranding Center E-2, E-5, E-14, F-4

NGO-E-15 Hinman Ken National Coalition for Marine Conservation A-5, C-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-14, F-4

NGO-E-14 Kane Austin National Wildlife Foundation A-5, D-1, E-2, E-14

NGO-PHAC-14 Chase Alison Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) A-5, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-14, F-4

NGO-E-10 Jasny Michael

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 

Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Water 

Advocacy, Clean Ocean Action, Coastal 

Conservation League, Earthjustice, Ocean 

Conservation Research, Oceana, Southern 

Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation, 

The Humane Society of the United States, Whale 

and Dolphin Conservation Society

See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-EF-10 Numerous (19,360) Numerous 

(19,360) Natural Resources Defense Council A-5, D-1, E-2, E-14, G-6 

NGO-E-9 Phemister David Nature Conservancy See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-E-13 Kraus Scott New England Aquarium See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-E-7 Dallara Nicole New Jersey Sierra Club A-2, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-14, F-4

NGO-PHAC-8 Bennekamper Robert none provided A-2

NGO-PHAC-11 Hoffberger (Hoffer) Jeffrey A. none provided A-2, E-2, E-14

NGO-PHAC-12 Weber John none provided A-5

NGO-PHN-2 Bell Susan none provided A-2, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-12, F-4

NGO-PHN-3 James Ellis W. none provided E-2, E-12, E-14

NGO-E-4 Stocker Michael Ocean Conservation Research Two Emailed 

Letters See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-PHAC-2 Jackson Margit-Meissner Ocean Sierra Club D-1, D-8, E-1, E-3, E-7, E-14

NGO-PHAC-3 Auriemman 

(Orgamba) D. Gregory Ocean Sierra Club A-5 

NGO-EF-1 Numerous

(720 + 27,382)

Numerous

(720 + 27,382) Oceana A-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-14, F-4 

NGO-PHN-4 Glenn Becca Oceana A-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-14, F-4

NGO-PHWNC-5 Keith Zachary Oceana A-5
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-9

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued). 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

NGO-E-11 Huelsenbeck Matthew

Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Ocean 

Action, Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, 

Surfrider Foundation, Southern Environmental Law 

Center, and Sierra Club 

B-4 

NGO-E-1 Armbruster Thomas SandyHook SeaLife Foundation A-2, D-1, E-14

NGO-PHAC-4 Tittel (Fiddle) Jeff Sierra Club A-2, A-5, E-2, E-7, F-4

NGO-PHN-1 Levandoski Eileen Sierra Club A-2, D-1, E-7, E-9, E-12, E-14, F-4

NGO-PHWNC-1 Barnett-Loro Carina Sierra Club A-2, A-5, B-2, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-14, F-4

NGO-PHWNC-2 Montgomery Mac Sierra Club A-5

NGO-L-1 Roe Amy Sierra Club, Delaware Chapter A-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-6, E-14

NGO-L-4 Meissner-Jackson Margit Sierra Club, Ocean County Group See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-EF-7 Numerous (1,117) Numerous (1,117) Sierra Club, Virginia Chapter A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-9, E-14, F-4

NGO-E-12 Hartl Brett Society for Conservation Biology See detailed technical response in Table L-6

NGO-PHC-2 Zimmerman Katie South Carolina Conservation League B-23, C-6

NGO-E-2 Mahan Simon Southern Alliance for Clean Energy C-6, D-1, D-3, E-2, E-5, E-14, G-2

NGO-EF-5 Numerous (1,592) Numerous (1,592) Surf Rider Foundation-1 A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, G-6

NGO-EF-6 Numerous (124) Numerous (124) Surf Rider Foundation-2 A-2, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-14, G-6

NGO-E-5 Stauffer Peter Surfrider Foundation A-2 D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-12, E-14, F-4

NGO-L-3 Crouch Ethan Surfrider Foundation A-5, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-10, F-4

NGO-PHWNC-3 Richardet Aaron Surfrider Foundation A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-10, 

E-14, F-4

NGO-PHWNC-4 Meadowcroft Al Surfrider Foundation A-5, E-7, E-8, F-4

N/A Savitz Jacqueline Oceana and International Fund for Animal Welfare See detailed technical response in Table L-6

General Public (sorted by Last Name)

P-E-103 Abate Cosumano Lorraine none provided A-2, D-1

P-E-24 Albee Kimberly none provided A-6

P-E-59 Allen Kerri none provided A-5

P-PHWNC-32 Altic Keenan none provided A-6

P-E-120 Amendola Kate none provided A-2, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-E-223 Amor Valerie none provided A-2, E-14

P-PHWNC-42 Amoroso Frank none provided A-1

P-E-16 Anderson William none provided A-6

P-L-8 Andrews Emiko Friends School Wilmington A-2, E-2, E-14

P-E-12 Andrews Lynn none provided A-2, E-2

P-E-160 Armstrong Anne none provided A-2, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-PHJ-8 Arpaia James none provided A-6

P-E-226 Ashley Thomas none provided A-5, E-14

P-PHA-2 Aus Doug none provided A-2, E-5, E-7, E-9, E-12, E-13, F-4

P-PHJ-32 Baer Victoria none provided A-1

P-PHWNC-13 Ballantrae Patrick none provided A-1, A-4
L-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes P-E-211 Barbar Kimberly none provided A-5 P-PHJ-1 Bardin Rachel none provided A-5 P-L-18 Barrett Linn none provided A-2, D-1, E-2, E-7, E

-14

P-PHN-5 Barton James none providedA-3

P-E-172 Baysden Virginia none providedA-2, E-2

P-PHWNC-6 Beck Ed none providedA-5

P-PHJ-15 Bedran Kyle none providedA-1, A-4

P-PHJ-14 Bell Nathaniel none providedA-1

P-E-93 Belon Susan none providedA-2, E-14

P-L-7 Berg Christopher none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-14

P-PHAC-6 Bernstein Harriann none providedA-6

P-E-52 Best Trish none providedA-2

P-E-31 Beyda Wendy none providedA-2, D-1, E-2

P-E-204 Bigger Lisa none providedA-2

P-E-113 Bissinger Tom none providedA-2, E-2

P-E-58 Blazier Brandi none providedA-2, E-14

P-PHN-11 Bloodworth Rowe Jane none providedA-2, E-7, E-8, E-13, E-14, F-4

P-E-221 Boyd Patty none providedA-5

P-E-237 Bozard Cecil none providedA-2

P-PHWNC-21 Bradshaw Brady none providedA-2, A-5, E-2, E-14

P-E-242 Braestrup Angelica E. none providedA-5, D-1, E-2

P-PHN-22 Brelin Scott none providedA-1

P-E-142 Brickman Christopher none providedA-2, E-2

P-E-76 Brinn Ira M. none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, G-6

P-PHC-1 Brooks Tom none providedA-1

P-E-239 Brown David none providedA-1

P-E-229 Brown Ward none providedA-2

P-PHA-1 Bruckner Steven none providedA-2, B-14, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-12

P-PHWNC-23 Bustle Jonathan none providedA-5

P-L-19 Byers Lola Friends School WilmingtonA-5, E-14

P-E-98 Cafiero Stephen none providedA-2, E-14

P-E-86 Calderon Sheila none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, G-6

P-PHWNC-5 Cameron Dan none providedA-6

P-E-20 Campaigne Alyssondra none providedA-2, B-23, E-2, E-5

P-E-39 Campbell Al none providedA-1

P-E-69 Campbell Grant South Florida Audubon SocietyD-1, E-1, E-2, E-3

P-E-106 Candia Joe none providedA-2

P-E-14 Cantrell Paul none providedA-2, B-23, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-PHC-9 Carmen Carlene none providedA-1

P-PHWNC-14 Carmen Carlene none providedA-1, A-4
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-11

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued). 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes P-E-146 Cassidy Paula none provided A-2, E-2, E-14 P-E-183 Chamberlin Geoff none provided A-6 P-PHJ-34 Chastain Stephen none provided A-6 P-E-139 Classen Matt none provided A-2, E-2, E-14 P-E-34 Cochran Alyssa none provided A-2, E-14 P-PHS-2 Collier Claudia none provided A-6 P-E-3 Collins Kenny none provided A-6 P-E-215 Comber Mary Lou none provided A-2 P-E-188 Conner Spencer none provided A-2, D-1, E-2 P-PHWNC-24 Cross Nancy none provided A-2, A-5, E-2, E-14 P-E-154 Cs Chris none provided A-2, E-7, E-8, E-14, F

-4

P-E-158 Csatary Christine M. none providedC-5

P-E-180 Curran Tina none providedA-2, E-14

P-E-191 D'Aiuto Christopher none providedA-6

P-E-102 Danch Nancy none providedA-2, D-1, E-14

P-E-135 Daniel Reinitz Nancy none providedA-2

P-E-75 Davidson Kym none providedA-2

P-E-28 Davis Ken none providedA-1, F-4

P-E-174 Davis Susan none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-E-213 Dawson Betty Anne none providedA-2, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-PHWNC-41 Dean Liza none providedA-5, E-2, G-5

P-E-100 DeClementi Camile none providedA-2, E-14

P-E-244 deFur Peter L. none provided See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-E-129 Del Porto Anthony none providedA-2, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-E-157 DeVanD none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-14, F-4

P-PHJ-20 deVidal Steve none providedA-1

P-PHN-25 Devine Carole none providedA-6

P-PHAC-7 Diamond Michael none providedA-6

P-PHAC-11 Dickson Mr. Behalf of Assemblyman McKeonA-2, E-7, E-9, E-12, E-13, E-14, F-4

P-E-202 di Grazia Cathie none providedA-2, E-2, E-14

P-PHAC-1 Dixon (Dickson) Sean (Shawn) none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-9, F-3, F-4

P-PHJ-4 Dockery Arlyn none providedA-6

P-PHJ-31 Donnelly Pamela none providedA-1

P-E-165 Downey Jennifer none providedA-2, E-2

P-E-178 Doyle-Madsen Jan-Judy none providedA-2, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-E-111 Duckworth Keith none providedA-2, A-5

P-PHWNC-9 Duval Paul none providedA-2

P-E-197 Dziak John none providedA-2

P-E-64 Eckert Rose Marie none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, F-4, G-6

P-E-220 Eckles Casey none providedD-1, E-2
L-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes P-PHWNC-26 Eisler Sara none provided A-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E

-9, E-14, F-4

P-E-48 Eisler Sara Sophie none providedA-5, C-3, E-2, G-5

P-PHC-5 Ensor Linda none providedA-1

P-PHAC-2 Fagan Thomas none providedA-2, D-1

P-E-57 Fazzino III Frank T. none providedA-1, F-4

P-E-187 Feighner Liz none providedA-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-E-116 Fellows George none providedA-1

P-E-208 Fink Harriet none providedA-5, E-2, E-14

P-E-133 Fischer Angela none providedA-2, D-1, E-2

P-E-140 Fisher-Golton Karin none providedA-2

P-E-119 Fitton Jamie none providedA-2

P-PHJ-18 Fitzpatrick James none providedA-1, A-4

P-E-109 Flaherty Carolynn none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, E-14

P-PHJ-33 Fleming Dennis none providedA-1

P-PHWDE-2 Fleming Lorraine none provided See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-PHN-8 Fleming William none providedB-23, D-3, E-2

P-E-49 Fleming, PhD William W. none providedA-4, B-23, G-5

P-E-95 Flynn Joan none providedA-2

P-E-50 Fogel Captain Joel S. none providedA-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-14

P-E-37 Franke Angela none providedE-14

P-E-171 Freas Carol none providedA-2

P-PHWNC-11 Freeman Paige none providedE-2, E-7, E-8, E-14, F-4

P-E-207 Fricke Lee none providedA-2, E-14

P-E-210 Friedman Meryl none providedA-5

P-E-99 Fry Maureen none providedA-2, E-14

P-E-94 Fuller Richard P. none providedA-2

P-PHN-7 Gagnon Chuck none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, G-5

P-E-101 Gaine Richard none providedA-6

P-PHWNC-20 Gale Tom none providedA-5

P-PHWNC-40 Gales Bev none providedA-5

P-E-26 Gallegos Karen none providedA-1, F-4

P-E-138 Gayle LaToya none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-14

P-E-131 Geer Eugene none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, E-14, G-1, G-6

P-PHAC-10 Geer (Dear) Eugene none providedE-1, E-2, E-14

P-E-200 Gentry Shannon none providedA-2

P-E-130 Gerst Dan none providedA-5, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-7, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-PHWNC-22 Gigliotti Mary none providedA-2, A-5

P-E-61 Giordano Tony none providedA-6

P-PHWNC-35 Gisler Geoff none providedE-2, E-14

P-E-43 Gooding Suzanne none providedA-5, E-9, F-4
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-13

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued). 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes P-E-60 Gornik April none provided A-2 P-E-166 Gould Pamela none provided A-5, E-7, E-14, F4 P-L-15 Grant Joyce none provided A-2 P-PHJ-23 Grant Shannon none provided A-1, A-4 P-E-203 Green Carol none provided A-2 P-PHA-4 Green Carol none provided A-2, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-9, F

-4

P-E-177 Green Jaime none providedA-2, D-1, E-2

P-PHWNC-1 Greer Robert none providedA-1

P-E-65 Griffin Candice B. none providedA-6

P-E-22 Griffin Jacqueline none providedA-5, E-9

P-E-70 Griffiths Bev none providedA-2, D-1, E-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-14

P-PHS-6 Gross Ellen none providedA-6

P-E-85 Grover Ravi none providedA-2, A-5, E-2, E-5, E-14

P-E-141 Guerra Javier none providedA-2

P-E-82 Guida Patricia none providedA-2, D-1, E-14

P-E-148 Hagan Teresa none providedA-5

P-PHJ-3 Hamilton Patrick none providedA-6, D-1, E-2, E-7

P-PHWNC-10 Hampton Jean none providedA-1

P-E-219 Hankins Judith none providedA-2, D-1, E-2

P-E-121 Hankinson Gail none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-8, F-4

P-PHAC-9 Harper Mary none providedA-2, E-2

P-E-170 Hartwell Margaret none providedA-2, A-5, E-2

P-E-175 Hasney Ann O. none providedA-2

P-PHJ-25 Hasty Elvira none providedA-1, E-7, E-14

P-E-235 Hawkins Monty none provided See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-PHN-16 Hayut Raven none providedD-1, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-PHWNC-30 Hazlett Michael none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-6

P-E-169 Healey Simone none providedA-5

P-PHAC-4 Healy Simone none providedA-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-12, E-14, F-4

P-PHJ-19 Henry Chelsi none providedA-1

P-E-161 Hibbs L. none providedA-2

P-E-186 Hoffman Elisabeth none providedA-2, E-14

P-E-89 Hofford Anna none providedA-2, B-23, E-2, E-9, E-14, F-4, G-6

P-E-231 Holeve Barry none providedE-2, E-7, E-8, F-4

P-PHS-5 Hollingsworth Beverly none providedB-7, D-1, E-2

P-E-224 Holmes Judi none providedA-1

P-E-11 Hook Holly Coastal Conservation LeagueA-2, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-E-13 Horton Linda none providedA-2, E-2

P-PHAC-13 Huges James A. none providedA-2

P-L-13 Hughes James none providedA-2
L-14 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes P-PHAC-8 Hughes Peter Atlantic Capes Fisheries, Inc. B-4 P-PHWNC-12 Hunt W. Scott none provided A-1 P-PHWNC-38 Hutchings Brinkley none provided A-5 P-E-110 Isakov Amy none provided A-2 P-PHWNC-33 Jackson Chip none provided A-1 P-E-168 Jacobi Lynden none provided A-2, D-1, E-2 P-E-201 Jagiello Carol none provided D-1, E-2, E-14 P-E-125 Jezierski Ben none provided A-6 P-E-35 John Anthony none provided E-14 P-E-96 Johnson Monica none provided A-2, E-14 P-E-42 Johnston Jenny none provided A-2 P-E-55 Karstens Kendra none provided A-2, D-1, E-14 P-PHWNC-36 Khan (Khm) Mujahid none provided A-3, A-6 P-E-136 King Michael none provided D-1, E-2 P-E-71 Kirby Patricia none provided A-2, E-2, E-7 P-E-108 Kline Kristin none provided A-2 P-E-184 Knowlton Elizabeth Knowlton A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E

-14, F-4

P-E-97 Koehl Lisa none provided

A-2, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-12, 

E-14, F-4

P-PHJ-7 Kolb LeAnne Kolb 4 CongressA-1, F-4

P-E-238 Kopelman Arthur H. Ph.D. none providedA-2, B-14, E-2

P-PHWNC-2 Kopp Bill none providedA-1

P-L-21 Kreh Marion none providedA-2

P-PHS-3 Kreski Laura none providedA-4

P-E-80 Kuiken Donna none providedA-2, E-14

P-E-198 Kurtz Elizabeth none providedA-5

P-E-145 Kuta Sue none providedA-2, E-2

P-PHN-9 Langston Diane none providedA-2, A-5

P-E-46 Lenahan Mary none providedA-2, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-PHN-19 Lewis Elizabeth none providedA-2

P-PHWNC-37 Lewis Elizabeth none providedA-6

P-E-222 Lewis Lisa none providedA-1

P-E-236 Lipman-Stern Elizabeth none providedA-6

P-E-196 Lish Chris none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, E-7, F-4

P-E-151 Litow Philip none providedA-2

P-E-74 Long Bud none providedA-2, E-2, E-5, E-14

P-E-189 Lopez Josie none providedA-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-14

P-L-3 Lorie Camille Friends School WilmingtonA-5, E-2, E-7, F-4

P-E-206 Luedtke Jean none providedA-2, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-14

P-E-2 Lundy Chris none providedA-6
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-15

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued). 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

P-PHN-15 Lundy Franklin none provided A-6

P-E-105 Macdonald Felicity none provided A-2, E-2, E-14

P-PHN-2 Malina Catherine none provided A-2, D-3, E-3, E-7, E-8, F-4

P-E-243 Malley Tim none provided A-2, D-1, E-2

P-PHN-21 Mariner Susan none provided A-2, E-2

P-E-152 Marryat Kathi none provided A-5, E-2

P-E-6 Marsh-Thomas Nina none provided A-2, B-23, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-E-225 Martin Martha none provided A-6

P-PHJ-30 Martz Nicole none provided A-1

P-E-67 Mascioli Cheryl none provided A-2, A-5, E-14, F-4

P-E-40 Mason Carl none provided A-6

P-E-228 Mathis Kathy none provided A-2

P-E-179 McAveney Donna M. none provided A-2, B-13, B-14, B-15, D-1, E-1, E-2, E-7, E-14, 

F-4

P-E-112 McAveney Donna M. none provided A-2, B-13, B-14, B-15, D-1, E-1, E-2, E-7, E-14, 

F-4

P-E-227 McCaffity Chris none provided A-2

P-E-247 McCaffity Chris Directed Sustainable Fisheries Inc. A-2, E-1, E-2, E-5, E-14

P-L-26 McCann Sydney Friends School Wilmington A-5, D-1, E-2

P-E-8 McCulloch Jamie none provided A-2, B-23, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-E-73 McEachern Joel B. none provided A-6

P-PHJ-22 Medros Diana none provided A-1

P-E-232 Meehan Nancy none provided A-2

P-PHJ-27 Methoei Marcelle none provided A-2, A-5, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-PHWNC-39 Metzger Bryan none provided A-2

P-E-23 Mikell David none provided A-2, B-23, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-PHJ-16 Miller Al none provided A-1

P-E-18 Miller Catherine none provided A-2, B-23, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-PHJ-6 Miller Marty none provided A-1

P-PHJ-12 Mills Jake none provided A-6

P-E-5 Mitchell Catherine none provided A-6

P-E-114 Montalvo Stephanie none provided A-6

P-E-159 Monteleone Bonnie none provided A-2, D-1, E-2

P-PHWNC-34 Moon Hunter none provided A-5

P-PHS-4 Moore Sammy none provided A-4

P-PHN-6 Morgan Christine none provided A-2, D-8, E-12, E-14

P-E-90 Morley Adam none provided A-5, E-2, F-4

P-E-107 Mortela Shannon none provided A-2

P-PHJ-10 Morton Karyn none provided A-1

P-PHJ-5 Morton Ray none provided A-1
L-16 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

P-PHWNC-19 Moss Charles Kenneth none provided A-2

P-E-21 Murphy Sally none provided A-2, E-2, E-3, E-5, G-1

P-PHN-1 Murray Deborah none provided A-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-8, F-4

P-PHJ-24 New Darrell none provided A-1

P-PHWDE-1 Nichols John none provided A-1

P-E-217 none provided Barbagge none provided A-2

P-E-245 none provided Busse none provided A-2, D-1, D-3, E-2

P-E-10 none provided Cabfolds none provided A-2

P-L-4 none provided Carissa Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-2

P-L-5 none provided Carson Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-2, E-14

P-L-6 none provided Charlotte Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-14

P-L-11 none provided Christian Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-2, E-14

P-E-181 none provided Cyrus none provided A-2

P-L-9 none provided Emma Friends School Wilmington A-5, D-1, E-14

P-L-10 none provided Finn Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-2

P-L-12 none provided Griffin Friends School Wilmington A-4, E-2

P-E-79 none provided Jacqueline none provided A-2, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-14, F-4

P-L-17 none provided Lillian Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-2, E-14

P-E-164 none provided Louise none provided A-2, E-2

P-L-20 none provided Maddie Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-2

P-E-143 none provided Matthew none provided A-6

P-PHJ-26 none provided none provided Tiny Company of 3 A-1

P-L-23 none provided Olivia none provided A-5, E-2, E-14

P-E-173 none provided Rippo none provided A-2

P-E-216 none provided Rohalkakepoto none provided A-2

P-E-81 none provided Shana none provided A-2

P-L-25 none provided Student Friends School Wilmington A-5

P-L-27 none provided Tucker none provided D-1, E-2

P-L-28 none provided Tyler none provided A-5, E-2

P-PHJ-2 Norman Yvonne none provided E-14

P-E-246 Nowacek Doug Duke University Marine Laboratory See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-E-19 Nutter Robert none provided E-2

P-PHWNC-29 O'Dariell Sherry none provided A-5

P-PHN-20 Olson Jeanne none provided A-6

P-E-137 Orr Carol none provided A-2, E-2

P-E-147 Otero Jennifer none provided A-2, E-2

P-PHJ-28 Pascacci Maria none provided A-1

P-E-156 Passarge Elke none provided D-1, E-2, E-14, F-4

P-E-25 Paulk Kimberly none provided A-2

P-PHWNC-28 Perotto Heidi none provided A-5, E-14
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-17

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued). 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

P-L-1 Perry Alisa none provided A-5

P-L-16 Pfeifer Justin Friends School Wilmington A-5, D-1, E-2, E-14

P-E-83 Pharis Linda none provided A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-E-234 Phillips Stuart none provided B-5, B-14, C-3, C-5, C-6, D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2, E-5, 

E-14, G-1, G-5

P-E-132 Pierce Ann none provided A-6

P-E-128 Pillot Cooper Friends Seminary A-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-14, F-4

P-PHC-6 Piscatella Tony none provided A-3

P-E-30 Polfus Jennifer none provided A-2, B-23

P-E-53 Poole Colleen none provided A-6

P-E-124 Popolizio Carlo none provided A-2, A-5, D-1, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-14

P-PHA-3 Porter Carla none provided A-2, A-5, E-2, E-12

P-L-24 Powell Ren Friends School Wilmington A-5, E-14

P-E-241 Preskitt Sid none provided A-1

P-PHWNC-18 Prince Ann none provided A-3

P-E-32 Public Jean none provided A-2, E-2

P-PHWDE-3 Purchase Ruth Ann none provided See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-PHN-10 Quartararo Alan none provided A-1

P-E-88 Ramos Joann none provided A-2, A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-14, 

F-4, G-6

P-PHC-10 Rapcitick Maria none provided A-1

P-PHC-3 Rapehick Steve none provided A-1

P-PHJ-9 Raube Ed none provided A-1, F-3

P-PHN-13 Redford Matt none provided D-1, E-2

P-L-22 Reed Michael none provided A-2

P-E-63 Reid Martha none provided A-2, E-2, E-14

P-E-182 Reiss Wayne none provided A-2

P-PHC-4 Richter William J. none provided A-3

P-E-155 Riddle Mary none provided A-2, E-2

P-E-199 Riddle Mary none provided A-2, E-2

P-E-195 Rist Joanne none provided A-5

P-E-194 Rist Mark none provided A-5

P-E-209 Rittenmeyer Pat none provided A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-E-41 Robuck Anna none provided A-2, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-PHN-24 Romano Sandy none provided A-6

P-PHN-14 Rommen Peggy none provided A-2

P-E-72 Ross Alexa none provided A-2, E-2, E-7, E-14, F-4

P-E-118 Rost Marlene none provided A-2

P-E-84 Rue Candice none provided A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-7, G-6

P-E-150 Ryan Phyllis none provided A-5, E-2
L-18 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

P-PHN-4 Rybak Sheila none provided A-2, E-2

P-E-185 Santoliquido Geoffrey Santoliquido A-2, A-5, E-2, E-14

P-PHN-3 Saunders Georgia none provided A-2

P-E-134 Sauvageau Monique none provided A-2, D-1, E-14

P-E-56 Savia Susan none provided A-2, D-1, E-2, E-14

P-PHN-23 Scalley (Melsgally) Melody none provided A-1

P-E-230 Schuster Monica none provided A-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-14, F-4

P-E-38 Scott Amanda none provided A-2, D-1, E-2, E-14

P-PHJ-17 Sharp Craig none provided A-1, A-4

P-PHN-18 Shaw Susan none provided A-6, D-1, E-7, F-4

P-E-68 Sheldon Tricia none provided A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, G-6

P-E-233 Shelton Dede none provided A-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-14

P-PHJ-29 Shook Nancy none provided A-2, A-5, E-2, E-14

P-L-30 Siegel Maia none provided A-5

P-PHWNC-25 Simonelli Jeanne none provided A-5, E-7, E-8, E-14

P-E-4 Skipper Norm none provided A-6, F-4

P-E-205 Slating Deborah none provided A-2, E-14

P-PHC-2 Smith Mike none provided A-1

P-E-176 Sotis Tina none provided A-2, E-2

P-E-54 Speck Regina none provided A-2, E-14

P-PHWNC-17 Spencer Janet none provided A-1

P-PHWNC-4 Spruill Jack Pender Watch & Conservancy A-5, B-1, B-8, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-E-78 Stanley Laurel none provided A-2, E-2, E-5, E-7

P-E-7 Steadman Cheryl none provided A-2, B-23, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-E-122 Steitz Jim none provided A-2, B-13, B-14, D-1, E-2, E-14

P-E-126 Stephenson Diane none provided A-5, E-5, E-7, E-14

P-PHAC-3 Stimpfel Teresa none provided A-2, D-1, E-2, E-7, E-14

P-E-66 Stokes Bill none provided D-1, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-7, E-14

P-E-167 Stone Gwen none provided A-2

P-PHWNC-7 Sullivan Ann none provided A-1

P-E-62 Summer Denise none provided A-2, E-9, E-14, F-4

P-E-91 Suruga Barbara none provided A-6

P-E-36 Sweeney Stephanie none provided A-2, E-9

P-PHWNC-15 Swego Al none provided A-1

P-E-190 Swingle Mark Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-E-218 Tank Tamara none provided A-2

P-PHC-8 Taylor Edwin S. none provided A-1, E-3

P-E-127 Taylor Ginger none provided A-2, C-5, E-3, E-14

P-PHWNC-43 Taylor Ginger none provided See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-E-123 Taylor Steven none provided A-6
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-19

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued). 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes P-PHJ-21 Thompson Anita none provided A-1 P-PHAC-5 Tippins Colby none provided A-6 P-E-193 Trezza Roseann none provided A-5, D-1, E-2, E-7, E

-14

P-PHJ-13 Trigueiro John E. none providedA-1, A-6

P-E-153 Tsocanos Georgia none providedA-5, E-2

P-E-214 Tsokanos Grace none providedA-5

P-E-45 Turner Holly none providedA-5

P-E-29 Usery Stephanie none providedA-6

P-E-47 Veale Stephen none providedA-2, E-14

P-PHAC-12 Vizzi (Beasley?) Gregory F. none providedA-2

P-L-14 Voll Joanne none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-14

P-E-17 Wahab May none providedA-3, G-1

P-L-2 Walker Cameron Friends School WilmingtonA-5, E-2, E-14

P-E-192 Walker Jacqueline none providedA-3

P-E-115 Wallmeyer Joseph G. none providedA-1

P-E-149 Walsh Anne none providedA-5

P-E-240 WarrenC none providedA-1

P-E-117 Watts Gene none providedA-1

P-PHS-1 Weeks Vicki Weeks Consulting See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-E-9 Welch Jenny none providedA-6

P-PHC-7 White Linda none providedA-2, E-3

P-E-144 Whitfield Kensie none providedA-2, E-2

P-E-92 Wilding Mary none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-14

P-E-1 Wiles David none providedD-1, E-2

P-E-33 Wiles David K. none provided See detailed technical response in Table L-6

P-E-15 Williams James none providedA-2, B-23, E-2, E-5, G-1

P-PHWNC-8 Willson Ken Coastal Planning & EngineeringD-1, F-3, G-6

P-PHN-12 Wilson Laura none providedA-2, D-1, E-2, E-14

P-PHJ-11 Wing Thomas none providedA-6

P-PHN-17 Winters Eva none providedA-2

P-E-44 Wisner Lisa none providedA-5

P-PHWNC-27 Wisner Sevi none providedA-6

P-E-104 Wolfson Margo none providedA-2, E-2, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-14

P-PHWNC-3 Woll Marvin none providedD-1, E-2

P-E-87 Wood Margaret none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, G-6

P-PHWNC-31 Woodruff Paige none providedA-6

P-E-77 Woods Susan none providedA-5, D-1, E-2, E-5, E-7, G-6

P-E-212 Workman Jean none providedA-6

P-PHWNC-16 Wright Curtis none providedA-1

P-E-27 Wright Shelia none providedA-6
L-20 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-4. List of Comment Category Codes (continued).

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Comment Codes

P-PHS-7 Wright Thomas W. none provided A-1

P-E-162 Ziecheck Eric none provided A-2

P-E-163 Ziecheck Leandra none provided A-2, F-4

P-E-51 Zoby Cecilia none provided A-2, E-2, E-4, E-5
Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS L-21

3. COMMENT SUMMARY AND RESPONSES 

The Comment Summary and Responses table (Table L-5) is designed to address the general issues 

for each category of the Comment Code Number list. Each of the comments coded with each Comment 

Code were read, summarized, and then grouped together and responded to in a general and concise 

manner to address the general concerns. Placing comments into categories allows similar concerns to be 

addressed with an appropriate common response and avoids repeating the same response numerous times. 
L-22 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-5 

General Comment Summary and Responses 

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

A-1 

In favor of the 

proposed action

(Supports 

Alternative A)

BOEM received comments expressing support for G&G surveys in 

the Atlantic, but that did not provide substantive information or 

questions that could help in improving the Programmatic EIS as a 

decision-making document. Support for the proposed action was 

generally connected with support for O&G production.

The Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G survey 

activities in the Area of Interest (AOI) for three program areas: oil 

and gas; renewable energy; and marine minerals. The scope of this 

Programmatic EIS does not include a National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sale. The 

procedures under the OSCLA to set up a lease sale include a specific 

NEPA evaluation for that proposed action.

A-2 Opposed to the 

proposed action

BOEM received comments expressing opposition to G&G surveys in 

the Atlantic, opposed to both alternatives A and B, but that did not 

provide substantive information or questions that could help in 

improving the Programmatic EIS as a decision-making document. 

Opposition to the proposed action was generally directly connected 

to O&G production.

The Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G survey 

activities in the AOI for three program areas: oil and gas, renewable 

energy, and marine minerals. The scope of this Programmatic EIS 

does not include a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not authorize an 

OCS lease sale. The procedures under the OSCLA to set up a lease 

sale include a specific NEPA evaluation for that proposed action.

A-3 Neutral 

BOEM received numerous comments that did not mention any aspect 

of the proposed action or the comments indicated they had no 

preference for a particular Alternative in the Programmatic EIS.

Comments noted.

A-4 Supports 

Alternative B

BOEM received comments from individuals opposed to 

Alternative A, but in support of Alternative B. Support for 

Alternative B was based on agreement with the increased level of 

mitigative measures in Alternative B compared to those for 

Alternative A.

Comments noted. This information was considered by BOEM in 

determining the Preferred Alternative.

A-5 Supports 

Alternative C

BOEM received many comments expressing a preference for the No 

Action Alternative, C. The concern was with the perceived 

incompatibility with various current marine activities including 

commercial and recreational fishing, and tourism. Concern was also 

expressed for several resource areas, primarily marine mammals and 

fishes. The preference for Alternative C was usually combined with 

a stated opposition to the action alternatives, A and B, which was 

usually connected to an opposition to future O&G production.

Comments noted. This information was considered by BOEM in 

determining the Preferred Alternative.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-23

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

A-6 

Opposition to 

future oil and gas 

activities, without 

any specific 

reference to G&G 

activities 

BOEM received numerous comments that did not mention any aspect 

of the proposed action, but instead generally focused on concern for 

future O&G production off the Atlantic coast. While a few were in 

favor of O&G, a preference for alternative energy was more 

frequently mentioned.

The Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G survey 

activities in the Area of Interest (AOI) for three program areas: oil 

and gas; renewable energy; and marine minerals. The scope of this 

Programmatic EIS does not include a National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sale. The 

procedures under the OCSLA to set up a lease sale include a specific 

NEPA evaluation for that proposed action.

B-1 Fast and efficient 

regulatory process

BOEM only received comments regarding the regulatory process that 

required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding the regulatory process.

B-2 Balanced energy 

policy 

BOEM received comments suggesting a balanced energy policy that 

emphasized a full array of domestic energy sources with particular 

focus on renewable energy. The comments generally expressed 

support for alternative energy sources as a substitute for oil and gas.

The Programmatic EIS has been developed to analyze the impacts that 

might result from G&G activities within the Area of Interest (AOI) 

associated with the three program areas: oil and gas; renewable 

energy; and marine minerals. The focus of the Programmatic EIS is a 

result of Congressional directive (2010 USDOI, Environment, and 

Related Agencies Appropriation Act [P.L. 111-88]) and, therefore, it 

does not address topics beyond the stated proposed action, purpose, 

and need, such as the Nation’s energy policy.

B-3 State permitting BOEM only received comments regarding State permitting 

coordination that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to State Agencies’ 

comments.

B-4 

Request extension 

of the public 

comment period 

for draft 

Programmatic EIS

BOEM received comments requesting the public comment period be 

extended to ensure the public had sufficient time to review the Draft 

Programmatic EIS and provide comments.

In response to the comments, BOEM extended the 60-day comment 

period an additional 33 days.

B-5 

Draft 

Programmatic EIS 

is adequate

BOEM only received comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS that required detailed technical responses. 

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding adequacy of the Draft Programmatic EIS.

B-6 Require 

local/state support

BOEM only received comments regarding local and State permitting 

coordination that required detailed technical responses.

See Table L-6 for responses to local and State Agencies’ comments.

B-7 

Lack of 

availability of 

Draft 

Programmatic EIS

BOEM received comments regarding inadequate advertisement of 

public hearings and the need for transparency in the NEPA process 

by making public hearing transcripts available. 

The public hearings were advertised through postings on websites, 

advertisements in newspapers of the cities hearings were held in, and 

notices mailed directly to parties that had shown a prior interest in the 

document. The transcripts for the public hearings will be posted on 

BOEM’s website at http://www.boem.gov/oil-and-gas-energyprogram/GOMR/GandG.aspx.

B-8 Cooperating 

agency issues

BOEM only received comments regarding cooperating agency 

coordination that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding cooperating agency coordination.

B-9 Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act

No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.
L-24 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

B-10 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act

BOEM only received comments regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that required detailed technical 

responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding NEPA.

B-11 Executive Order 

12114

No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

B-12 Coastal Zone 

Management Act

BOEM only received comments regarding the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), primarily from State Agencies that 

required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to State Agencies’ 

comments regarding CZMA. 

B-13 Endangered 

Species Act

BOEM received comments expressing the view that the proposed 

action would violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

BOEM requested formal consultation under the ESA with FWS on 

June 11, 2012. On August 7, 2012, FWS concurred that the proposed 

G&G activities would have no effect on, or would not be likely to 

adversely affect, the federally listed species or designated critical 

habitats. 

On May 24, 2012, BOEM requested formal consultation under the 

ESA with NMFS. On May 24, 2013, NMFS issued a Final Biological 

opinion (BO) BOEM requested NMFS reissue the Final BO to 

include BOEM’s clarifications provided on May 9, 2013. On July 19, 

2013, NMFS issued a revised Final BO.

NMFS concluded in the BO that the proposed G&G activities are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species found 

in the AOI. NMFS also concluded the proposed action is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify NARW critical habitat. The BO included 

terms and conditions that BOEM has incorporated into the mitigations 

and protocols outlined in the Final EIS. The ITS issued under the 

ESA by NMFS as a part of the BO must first be authorized by Section 

101(a)(5)(a) of the MMPA. The terms of the ITS and the exemption 

from Section 9 of the ESA become effective only upon the issuance of 

MMPA authorization to take marine mammals as stipulated in an ITA.

B-14 Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

BOEM received comments regarding the potential for violation of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as a result of receiving 

a permit for implementation of the proposed action.

BOEM is working with NMFS to ensure that all requirements of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act are met. While this document 

contains extensive information about the study area relevant to an 

application for an incidental take authorization (ITA), including 

estimates of incidental take of marine mammals, 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. 

Operators will be required to obtain ITAs when necessary in 

conjunction with BOEM authorization at the permit/site-specific level. 

This document shall serve as a reference for environmental 

documentation regarding future site-specific actions.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-25

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

B-15 

MagnusonStevens Fishery 

Conservation and 

Management Act

BOEM received comments expressing the view that the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) would 

not protect species from negative impacts resulting from the 

proposed action.

On April 12, 2012, BOEM requested a Programmatic EFH 

consultation from NMFS. On June 1, 2012, NMFS made the 

determination that a Programmatic EFH Consultation was not an 

appropriate mechanism to evaluate EFH impacts of BOEM G&G 

Activities in the Atlantic based on available information. The 

agencies have continued to coordinate on this matter and BOEM has 

proposed to conduct site/permit-specific review and, if necessary, 

consultation for site/permit-specific activities.

B-16 Clean Air Act No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

B-17 Clean Water Act No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

B-18 National Historic 

Preservation Act

BOEM only received comments regarding the National Historic 

Preservation Act that required detailed technical responses, primarily 

from State Agencies.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to State agencies’ 

comments.

B-19 Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act

BOEM only received comments regarding the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

B-20 Executive Order 

13547

No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

B-21 Rivers and 

Harbors Act

BOEM only received comments regarding the Rivers and Harbors 

Act that required detailed technical responses, primarily from Federal 

Agencies.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to Federal agencies’ 

comments.

B-22 National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act

BOEM only received comments regarding the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act that required detailed technical responses, primarily 

from Federal agencies.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to Federal agencies’ 

comments.

B-23 Survey data 

availability

BOEM received comments about the data generated during G&G 

surveys. Many felt this data should be made available to the public 

to allow for informed decisions regarding future activities.

G&G surveys are conducted by publicly or privately owned 

companies. These companies usually carry out surveys on a 

speculative basis, in order to sell the data generated by those surveys 

on the market. Making the data publicly available would eliminate 

any market for its sale which would eliminate the incentive for its 

collection.

C-1 Redefine Purpose 

and Need

BOEM only received comments regarding the purpose and need that 

required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding purpose and need.

C-2 Issues with 

screening criteria

BOEM only received comments regarding screening criteria that 

required detailed technical responses

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding screening criteria.

C-3 Other issues with 

alternatives

BOEM received comments addressing other issues with the 

alternatives. These included a desire to avoid duplicative surveys 

that is, multiple surveys of the same area, and a desire to see other 

less intrusive technologies used in place of airguns.

While the permit applications BOEM has received to date show an 

overlapping of surveys, it is unlikely that particular areas will be 

surveyed multiple times. Because surveys are usually done on a 

speculative basis multiple surveys of the same data would reduce the 

market for each survey. The Programmatic EIS does evaluate 

alternative technologies to airguns (see Chapter 2.5.6). Although 

some airgun alternative technologies are available now or in the next 

1-5 years, none are at the stage that they can replace airgun arrays.
L-26 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

C-4 

Include the North 

Atlantic Planning 

Area

BOEM received comments indicating the area of interest for the 

proposed action should be expanded to include the North Atlantic 

Planning Area to tie production from offshore of Nova Scotia to U.S. 

Atlantic basins.

The suggested expansion was considered as an alternative in the 

Programmatic EIS, but eliminated from further analysis (see 

Chapter 2.5.2).

C-5 

Additional 

information 

needed for 

alternatives

BOEM received comments suggesting additional information was 

needed by the public and to help evaluate alternatives. Topics 

mentioned included: establishing a dataset for public planning of 

future uses of the Atlantic OCS; gathering information to determine 

if G&G surveys are appropriate on the Atlantic OCS; and, making 

G&G survey data available to the public to ensure an informed 

dialogue.

BOEM was directed by the 2010 U.S. Department of Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act (P.L. 111-88) 

to conduct a Programmatic EIS to evaluate potential significant 

environmental effects of multiple G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS. 

That direction is the basis for the focus on G&G surveys. Release of 

G&G survey data has been addressed in the response to Comment 

Code B-23.

C-6 New alternatives

BOEM received comments suggesting additional alternatives.

Suggested alternatives included: limiting G&G surveys to the area in 

which renewable energy activities would occur; developing a 

comprehensive plan to evaluate all kinds of future uses of the 

Atlantic OCS.

As noted in the response to comment code C-5, BOEM was directed 

to carry out the NEPA process and produce a Programmatic EIS that 

evaluates multiple G&G activities. To restrict the scope of this 

document and not address all three program areas would fail to meet 

the agency mandate. Developing a comprehensive plan that evaluates 

all kinds of future uses of the Atlantic OCS is beyond the scope of 

BOEM’s mandate for this document.

D-1 Active acoustic 

sound sources

BOEM received numerous comments regarding sound introduced 

into the water by G&G survey equipment, most concerns centered on 

airguns, and the impacts on marine resources, primarily marine 

mammals. Concerns generally viewed the levels of introduced 

sound, both the intensity and area over which it would be projected, 

as unacceptable. The estimated take numbers were also viewed as 

unacceptable, and mitigation measures were considered insufficient.

Incidental take estimates associated with proposed seismic survey 

activities indicate 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. Based on the 

results of this analysis and proposed mitigation measures, 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 behavioral patterns or displacement of 

individual marine mammals from discrete areas within the AOI, 

including both critical and preferred habitats.

D-2 Vessel and 

equipment noise

BOEM only received comments regarding vessel and equipment 

noise that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding vessel equipment and noise.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-27

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

D-3 Vessel traffic 

BOEM received comments expressing concern about the level of 

activity resulting from the proposed action, particularly about 

increased levels of traffic with the potential for increased ship strikes, 

the right whale was identified as being especially vulnerable, and 

potential space/use conflicts between seismic ships and commercial 

fishermen. 

The Programmatic EIS analyzed impacts that might result from a 

number of impact-producing factors including vessel traffic. 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 survey vessels (relative to overall vessel traffic) 

and their relatively low speed of travel, the presence of protected 

species observers (PSOs) on board certain survey vessels, and 

adherence to vessel operations guidelines for avoidance of vessel 

strikes with listed species. Vessel exclusion zones resulting from 

proposed G&G seismic activity under Alternatives A and B have the 

potential to directly affect a limited amount of commercial fishing 

activity within the AOI. Based on the predicted activity levels, G&G 

vessel traffic and vessel exclusion zones would be intermittent, 

temporary, and short-term, producing minor impacts, with no 

population level or regional effects.

D-4 Aircraft traffic 

and noise No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

D-5 Vessel exclusion 

zones

BOEM only received comments regarding vessel exclusion zones 

that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding vessel exclusion zones.

D-6 Vessel wastes No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

D-7 Trash and debris No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

D-8 Seafloor 

disturbance 

BOEM received comments indicating a concern that seismic (G&G) 

surveys could trigger submarine landslides and negatively impact 

plant life on the bottom.

As a programmatic document the Programmatic EIS provides a broad 

level discussion of mitigation measures. Site-specific environmental 

documentation will provide mitigation measures designed to address 

the particular circumstances that will be encountered within the 

physical bounds of a particular project. Further discussion of this 

topic can be found in Table L-6.

D-9 Onshore support 

activities

No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

D-10 Fuel spills BOEM only received comments regarding fuel spills that required 

detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding fuel spills.

E-1 Benthic 

communities 

Comments expressed a concern regarding the impact of seismic 

surveys on seafloor canyons, corals, the habitat of bottom dwellers, 

lobsters, and scallop beds. Concern was also expressed regarding 

proximity of G&G surveys to marine protected areas and coral 

habitat areas of concern.

Chapter 4.2.1.2.2 of the Programmatic EIS explains that each survey 

that would include bottom-disturbing activities would be required to 

perform clearance surveys to identify sensitive benthic habitats in the 

survey area which would then be avoided.
L-28 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

E-2 Marine mammals

BOEM received many comments expressing concern for marine 

mammals. The comments generally focused on the importance of 

hearing to marine mammals and the potential impacts sound from 

seismic survey equipment, airguns in particular, would have on their 

ability to rest, forage, migrate, avoid predators, and mate. Specific 

concerns were also stated regarding hearing loss resulting in 

disorientation, migratory disruptions, and possible death. Comments 

noted the estimated number of take seemed high. Many comments 

asked what studies had been done to assess the impacts of airguns. 

Many comments focused specifically on the northern right whale.

Comments also noted a lack of information on which to base the 

assessment of impacts.

BOEM has utilized the acoustic criteria provided by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Programmatic EIS uses these 

NMFS thresholds and discusses the Southall criteria as a way of 

comparison in the document. Other thresholds are not peer reviewed 

and until the established thresholds are changed, BOEM needs to 

follow existing thresholds. BOEM recognizes that literature suggests

a need for a change to the current standard and that a new standard 

may be provided, when it is provided, BOEM will be responsive to 

those changes at that time and each individual survey would utilize the 

new thresholds. Until then, the existing thresholds must be used. 

E-3 Sea turtles

Critical migration and feeding areas current time restrictions would 

put sea turtles at risk. Comments expressed a concern that the focus 

of the Draft Programmatic EIS was primarily on nesting turtles in 

Florida while ignoring turtles in the other states adjacent to the AOI. 

Comments also noted a lack of information on which to base the 

assessment of impacts.

A detailed description of all five sea turtle species found in the AOI is 

presented in Chapter 4.2.3.1.. A more detailed description of sea 

turtle hearing is provided in Appendix I. Potential effects of 

anthropogenic sound on sea turtles are discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2. 

E-4 Marine and 

coastal birds

BOEM only received comments regarding marine and coastal birds 

that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding marine and coastal birds.

E-5 

Fish resources and 

essential fish 

habitat 

BOEM received comments expressing concern about the impact of 

G&G surveys on fish resources or EFH, specifically that airguns will 

affect fish’s ability to hear which is used to find mates, locate prey, 

and avoid predators, and which may seriously compromise their 

ability to survive. Comments also expressed concern with the 

assessment that impacts would be primarily behavioral and therefore 

transient in nature. Many comments asked what studies had been 

done to assess the impacts of airguns. Potential for damage to swim 

bladders was also mentioned.

Appendix J provides a complete discussion of the effects of sound on 

fish. 

E-6 

Threatened or 

endangered fish 

species

BOEM received comments expressing concern about the impact of 

G&G surveys on listed species, the Atlantic sturgeon, in particular, 

was mentioned. Comments also noted a lack of information on which 

to base the assessment of impacts.

Chapters 4.2.6, 4.3.6, and 4.4.6 include discussion of the Atlantic 

sturgeon. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-29

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

E-7 Commercial 

fisheries 

BOEM received numerous comments expressing concern about the 

impact of G&G surveys on fish catches. The concerns were both 

about direct impacts to fish and limitations of access to fishing areas.

Concerns also focused on the effect of G&G surveys on fish 

behavior, impacts to hearing, and the displacement of commercial 

fisheries. All comments were ultimately tied together with a concern 

for the potential loss of jobs and revenues that could result from 

G&G surveys.

As indicated in Chapter 3.5.1.5, prior to conducting a seismic survey, 

operators would submit information to the local U.S. Coast Guard 

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.

Experience in the Gulf of Mexico indicates that seismic surveys can 

be conducted safely without causing significant interruption of fishing 

activities or economic hardship to the fishing industry. Regarding 

displacement of commercial fisheries, clarifying text has been added 

to Chapters 4.2.5.2.2, 4.2.7.2.2, and 4.2.8.2.2. Appendix J provides 

a complete discussion of the effects of sound on fish.

E-8 Recreational 

fisheries 

BOEM received comments expressing concern about the potential 

impacts of G&G surveys on fishes and the resultant impact to 

recreational fisheries. Concerns and comments were largely the 

same as those for commercial fisheries.

Please see response above to E-7.

E-9 Recreational 

resources 

BOEM received comments expressing concern about the impact of 

G&G surveys on recreational activities. Comments focused on 

impacts to the tourism and travel industry along the coastline 

adjacent to the AOI which accounts for billions of dollars of revenue 

and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Chapter 4.2.9.2 of the Programmatic EIS provides an analysis of 

potential impacts to recreational resources from vessel exclusion 

zones and trash and debris associated with G&G activities.

E-10 Archeological 

resources 

BOEM received comments expressing concern about the potential 

impact of G&G surveys on archeological resources.

As discussed in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM would require site-specific 

information regarding potential archeological resources prior to 

approving any G&G activities involving seafloor-disturbing activities 

or placement of bottom-founded equipment or structures in the Area 

of Interest.

E-11 Marine protected 

areas

BOEM only received comments regarding marine protected areas 

that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding marine protected areas.

E-12 Other marine uses BOEM only received comments regarding other marine uses that 

required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding other marine uses.

E-13 Human resources 

and land use

BOEM only received comments regarding human resources and land 

use that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding human resources and land use.

E-14 

General 

environmental 

resource

BOEM received comments expressing concern in general terms (e.g., 

ocean, sea, sealife, ecosystem, and environment) that did not contain 

resource-specific comments.

These comments can be addressed by responses provided for the 

resource-specific comment categories, particularly E-1 through E-13. 

F-1 Oil and gas 

infrastructure

No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

F-2 Military activities No comments were received for this category. No response necessary.

F-3 Regional sand 

sources 

BOEM received comments expressing concern about any additional 

requirements that would be placed on G&G surveys for marine 

minerals in the Atlantic above and beyond current requirements in 

the Gulf of Mexico.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding sand sources.
L-30 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-5. General Comment Summary and Response Table (continued).

Comment 

Code

Comment Code 

Name Comment Summaries Response 

F-4 Socioeconomics 

(general) 

Many socioeconomic-related comments were received, some related 

to negative impacts to commercial or recreational fishing, tourism, 

and coastal economies. Some comments noted the economic 

benefits in the form of job creation as a result of G&G surveys. 

For comments related to negative impacts, see responses to comment 

codes E-7, E-8, and E-9. For comments, regarding economic benefits, 

see Chapter 4.2.13.2.2 regarding job creation.

G-1 Avoidance and 

minimization

BOEM received comments encouraging minimization of impacts 

from the proposed action to fisheries, marine mammals, habitat, and 

other marine species such as the Right whale.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding avoidance and minimization.

G-2 

Expanded TimeArea Closure for 

NARWs 

Comments for this category called for prohibiting G&G activities 

during November through April, in essence, expanding the closure 

area to cover the Mid and South Atlantic Planning Areas over the 

time period specified in the Programmatic EIS.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding closures.

G-3 

Time-Area 

Closure for 

Nesting Sea 

Turtles

BOEM only received comments regarding Time-Area Closure for 

nesting sea turtles that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding closures.

G-4 

Separation 

between 

Simultaneous 

Seismic Airgun 

Surveys 

BOEM received comments indicating opposition to the separation 

distance between surveys.

BOEM has considered the reduction of duplication of effort as a 

mitigation measure to reduce the overall sound input, for this 

Programmatic EIS. The idea of eliminating duplicative surveys would 

require a degree of coordination and direction of the private sector by 

BOEM that is not part of the operating relationship between this 

Agency and industry. 

G-5 Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring

BOEM primarily received comments regarding Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring (PAM) that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding PAM.

G-6 General 

Mitigation

BOEM primarily received comments regarding General Mitigation 

that required detailed technical responses.

Table L-6 provides detailed technical responses to comments 

regarding mitigation.
L-31 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

4. COMMENTS REQUIRING A DETAILED TECHNICAL RESPONSE

Table L-6 

Comment Summary and Responses for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Responses 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Elected Officials (sorted by last name)

Phil Berger, 

North Carolina 

Senate

EO-L-3 0.01 

While I support the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) 

efforts to move forward with G&G data acquisition outlined in 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) entitled 

“Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical 

Activities,” I must first express my disappointment with the 

final Five-Year Program for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil 

and Gas Leasing for 2012-2017.

Comment noted.

Phil Berger, 

North Carolina 

Senate

EO-L-3 0.02 

While additional G&G data can further quantify our nation's 

OCS resources, they should be viewed as an enhancement of 

existing data and not a requirement to move forward with 

responsible leasing, exploration, and development activities. 

However, in light of the fact that BOEM and DOI continue to 

not include the Atlantic OCS in their leasing strategies, I urge 

BOEM and the DOI to complete the PEIS process quickly. 

This will ensure that pending G&G permit applications before 

BOEM are approved in a timely and efficient manner so that 

additional hydrocarbon potential can be quantified and the 

federal government can be persuaded to re-open North 

Carolina's OCS for leasing, exploration, and development.

Comment noted.

Phil Berger, 

North Carolina 

Senate

EO-L-3 0.03 

I support Alternative A (the proposed action). If additional 

mitigation is deemed necessary, a combination of Alternatives 

A & B (additional time-area closures and separation of 

simultaneous seismic airgun surveys) might also be an 

acceptable solution. I am concerned that Alternative B as a 

standalone plan will delay acquisition of critical G&G data and, 

therefore, do not recommend this approach.

Comment noted.

Phil Berger, North 

Carolina Senate EO-L-3 0.04 

I strongly urge the DOI and BOEM to increase the permitting 

pace of existing leases in order to expedite job creation and 

energy delivery to the domestic market.

Comment noted.

Paul G. Campbell, 

South Carolina 

State Senator

EOPHC-1 0.01 

Based on the oil and natural gas industry will do everything to 

make sure that our marine life is protected as much as possible 

I think we can do this exploration safely.

Comment noted.
L-32 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Paul G. Campbell, 

South Carolina 

State Senator

EO-

PHC-1 0.02 

And, most certainly, if we find natural gas off the coast of 

South Carolina, that definitely benefits our state.

Comment noted.

Paul G. Campbell, 

South Carolina 

State Senator

EO-

PHC-1 0.03 

Well, it will certainly be able to support more jobs. Comment noted.

Paul G. Campbell, 

South Carolina 

State Senator

EO-

PHC-1 0.04 

We are satisfied that we are doing things appropriately and 

safely so we don't hurt our tourism industry.

Comment noted.

Paul G. Campbell, 

South Carolina 

State Senator

EO-

PHC-1 0.05 

I would urge the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management to 

consider the pro-development of this part of the region of the 

continental shelf, the east coast continental shelf, because I do 

think we can do it safely.

Comment noted.

Paul G. Campbell, 

South Carolina 

State Senator

EO-

PHC-1 0.06 

I do encourage you to go forward with this and allow them to 

do exploration tests in our areas.

Comment noted.

Thom Goolsby, 

Senator, 

North Carolina 

EO-

PHWN

C-2 

0.01 

One of our concerns was the fact that we may have potential 

significant natural gas offshore, and as we convert our power 

plants here in North Carolina from coal to clean burning natural 

gas, just as we have done in the Sutton plant over here – we’re 

in the process of spending a lot of money to do -- it would be 

nice to know if we do have significant natural gas reserves.

Comment noted.

Thom Goolsby, 

Senator, 

North Carolina 

EO-

PHWN

C-2 

0.02 

Having our own supply of that right offshore is something we 

would like to at least know we have and then investigate over 

the next two years whether or not that can be harvested safely 

and without environmental degradation and destroying any of 

our beautiful natural coast that I represent all of New Hanover 

County.

Comment noted.

Thom Goolsby, 

Senator, 

North Carolina 

EO-

PHWN C-20.03 

I would ask that you seriously consider Alternative A and move 

ahead.

Comment noted.

Jenny Horne, 

State 

Representative 

EO-

PHC-2 0.01 

We need these studies because the last surveys of this region 

were conducted more than 25 years ago, especially since recent 

technological developments have given us much more 

sophisticated tools to analyze the data from these surveys and 

to recover oil and natural gas resources discovered through the 

use of this data.

Comment noted.

Jenny Horne, 

State 

Representative

EO-

PHC-2 0.02 

A recent Wood-Mackenzie study estimates that increasing 

development would create approximately 5,000 jobs in South 

Carolina.· These include jobs involved indirectly in developing 

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-33

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

new energy as well other related jobs in construction, 

manufacturing and other sectors that affected indirectly by new 

development.

Jenny Horne, 

State 

Representative

EO-

PHC-2 0.03 

I urge you to deliver the South Carolina message of supporting 

the testing that must be done to let us know if there is oil and/or 

natural gas off the coast of South Carolina.·

Comment noted.

Jenny Horne, 

State 

Representative 

EO-

PHC-2 0.04 

If oil and natural gas is found off our coast, we will have the 

opportunity, along with other states in the South Atlantic region 

and across the country, to produce American energy for 

Americans.

Comment noted.

Marge Hutton, 

County 

Commission, 

District 3

EO-

PHJ-1 0.01 

I ask you to move forward with the seismic surveys in the 

Atlantic outer Continental Shelf for the sake of Clay County, 

for the sake of Florida, and our nation's businesses.

Comment noted.

Ann Johnston, 

Mayor, Town of 

St. George 

EO-

PHC-3 0.01 

I urge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to move 

forward with 2012 levels to determine what may be out there in 

the outer continental shelf.

Comment noted.

Ann Johnston, 

Mayor, Town of 

St. George 

EO-

PHC-3 0.02 

I find it difficult to name one reason why this state and other 

coastal states would not pursue the benefits of new industry for 

the sake of job and capital investments that come from it.

Comment noted.

Ann Johnston, 

Mayor, Town of 

St. George 

EO-

PHC-3 0.03 

For each new job created by off shore exploration and 

production, there will be substantial creation of other jobs to 

support these efforts.

Comment noted.

Ann Johnston, 

Mayor, Town of 

St. George 

EO-

PHC-3 0.04 

The attraction of the coast and drilling for oil for natural gas 

does not need to be mutually exclusive.

Comment noted.

Bill Rabon, 

Senator, 

North Carolina

EO-

PHWN

C-3 

0.01 

We have some things offshore. We don’t know what we have, 

but I'm not afraid to look at it to see what we have and to see 

what we can do with it and see if we can utilize that resource or 

if we can’t. And when we have data, we can use data driven 

statistics to tell us whether we need to be out there or whether 

we don't, but we -- we face a conundrum, and we need to get to 

the bottom of it, and when we do, we'll make a decision, and 

hopefully we'll make well-informed and proper decisions.

Comment noted.

Bill Rabon, 

Senator, 

North Carolina

EO-

PHWN

C-3 

0.02 

We need to be out there looking, which leads me to the 

conclusion and the only conclusion is the option ·that I would 

support and I'm sure my colleagues in the Senate are going to 

support very, very shortly -- come out with a statement that we 

support Option A, and we support it very strongly.

Comment noted.

Scott Rigell, 

U.S. House of EO-L-2 0.01 While I am encouraged that the Administration is giving consideration to the vast energy potential waiting to be 

Comment noted.
L-34 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Representatives developed off our shores, I am disappointed in the slow, 

tedious, and dismissive approach that has been taken thus far.

Scott Rigell, 

U.S. House of 

Representatives 

EO-L-2 0.02 

Leaving Virginia’s Lease Sale 220 out of the 2012-2017 five 

year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy plan was a clear 

indicator that this Administration has no intention of seeing 

offshore energy production in the Mid-Atlantic region any time 

soon.

Lease Sale 220 is not part of the activities evaluated in this 

Programmatic EIS.

Scott Rigell, 

U.S. House of 

Representatives 

EO-L-2 0.03 

I welcome the opportunity for seismic studies to supplement 

our understanding of the offshore energy resources, but I do not 

see a legitimate market for that data when there is no plan to 

allow the energy potential to be developed. Energy producers 

will only be willing to purchase the data when there is clear 

evidence they will be able to recover their investments by 

harvesting the energy resource.

The projected survey levels analyzed in the Programmatic EIS were 

based on survey applications submitted by geophysical companies. 

BOEM has contacted the applicants to verify that they are still interested 

in conducting the proposed surveys. Whether or not there is a market for 

the seismic survey data would be part of the business decision made by 

individual geophysical companies, as most large-scale seismic surveys 

are conducted on a speculative basis.

Frank Shultz on 

behalf of 

Senator Menendez

EOPHAC1 

0.01 

I write in opposition to the draft Environmental Impact 

Statement to allow seismic testing in the Mid Atlantic.· The 

only reason to allow seismic testing is to later allow oil drilling 

and we do not need oil spills on the Jersey Shore.

Comment noted.

Frank Shultz on 

behalf of 

Senator Menendez

EOPHAC1 

0.02 

I find it interesting that part of the supposed justification to 

allow this testing is for renewable energy.· Doing seismic 

testing to site a wind turbine certainly seems like overkill to me 

unless the Department of Interior is aware of a wind turbine so 

large that it needs to be anchored miles under the ocean floor.

As described in Chapter 3.3 of the Programmatic EIS, high-resolution 

geophysical surveys of the seafloor would be needed for renewable 

energy site characterization and assessment. These surveys are 

conducted to obtain information about subsea floor conditions, shallow 

hazards, archaeological resources, and sensitive benthic habitats. 

Typical equipment is expected to include single beam or multibeam 

depth sounders, magnetometers, side-scan sonars, and shallow and 

medium penetration subbottom profilers. BOEM does not anticipate that 

deep penetration seismic surveys using airguns would be necessary for 

renewable energy site characterization and assessment.

Frank Shultz on 

behalf of 

Senator Menendez

EOPHAC1 

0.03 

Seismic testing in and of itself is problematic. Not only can it 

have significant impacts on marine mammals, but it has also 

been shown to negatively affect nearby fisheries.

Potential impacts of seismic surveys on fish and fisheries are evaluated 

in Chapters 4.2.5 (Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat), 4.2.6

(Threatened and Endangered Fish Species), and 4.2.7 (Commercial 

Fisheries).

Jason Thompson, 

NHC 

Commissioner

EOPHWN

C-1

0.01 

Publicly support the proposal to conduct seismic studies of the 

Atlantic Continental Shelf.

Comment noted.

Jason Thompson, 

NHC 

Commissioner 

EOPHWN

C-1 

0.02 

New technology to analyze, explore and produce oil and 

natural gas will increase the amount that we can recover, and, 

therefore, the energy to supply our growing demands will 

improve.

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-35

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Jason Thompson, 

NHC 

Commissioner 

EO-

PHWN

C-1 

0.03 

According to a recent -- study, opening up Atlantic offshore 

areas that are currently unavailable could bring more than 

35,000 jobs to North Carolina. These jobs would not be 

limited to oil and natural gas production -- oil and natural gas 

development but jobs created indirectly by those companies 

that supply equipment and other support services both offshore 

and onshore as well as to construct the infrastructure required 

to drill offshore.

Comment noted.

Jason Thompson, 

NHC 

Commissioner 

EO-

PHWN

C-1 

0.04 

In addition, offshore development could generate much needed 

revenue to fund critical services, including roads, 

environmental conservation and education --according to a --

study, nearly four billion dollars in revenue -- four billion 

dollars in revenue could be generated for North Carolina for 

2012 -- 2030 if offshore development were allowed to take 

place in areas that are currently off limits.

Comment noted.

Jason Thompson, 

NHC 

Commissioner 

EO-

PHWN

C-1 

0.05 

The Federal government is currently indicating that leasing in 

the Atlantic OCS will not be possible until we have more data 

on potential resources. This will be a major roadblock to the 

entire process, because without leases, companies -- companies 

would not be able to explore -- for and develop these valuable 

offshore resources, stymieing the benefits additional energy, 

jobs and revenue that offshore oil and natural gas developments 

will bring.

Comment noted.

Jason Thompson, 

NHC 

Commissioner 

EO-

PHWN

C-1 

0.06 

Please allow the seismic studies to move forward as soon as 

possible and advance the leasing process on the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf so our nation can strengthen our energy and 

economic security.

Comment noted.

Frank Wagner, 

Virginia 

State Senator 

(District 7)

EO-

PHN-1 0.01 

We have a saying in the General Assembly up there that a vote 

against a study is a vote for ignorance, and I really want to 

commend you for moving forward with this study and moving 

forward with the opportunity to do these seismic surveys in the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic areas because this will give us 

the opportunity to come to grips with what is out there, what 

quantities are out there, where are the locations, all of those 

things that we need to know to formulate and debate a strategy.

Comment noted.

Frank Wagner, 

Virginia 

State Senator 

(District 7)

EO-

PHN-1 0.02 

Once we know these things, then we can analyze whether it's 

safe, prudent to go after these resources or whether it makes 

economic sense to go after these resources.

Comment noted.

Frank Wagner, 

Virginia 

EO-

PHN-1 0.03 I can't overemphasize the need to have the accurate information for the citizens that we all represent, particularly in the Mid-

Comment noted.
L-36 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

State Senator 

(District 7)

Atlantic and South Atlantic area to know what's out there, with 

a reasonable expectation of what's out there, not data based on 

technology that’s 25 years old and somewhat suspect, to have 

that actual information to be able to formulate and base 

decisions on whether or not we should move forward with this, 

in what manner we should move forward with this and what 

expectation we can have and results out there.· And for all 

those reasons, I think this study is altogether appropriate, and 

we need to move forward with the study.

Mark Warner, 

U.S. Senate EO-L-1 0.01 

One of the most important pieces of information we can gain 

from this process of exploration is to get a clear, detailed 

accounting of how much oil and gas is present in the Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf areas.

Comment noted.

Mark Warner, 

U.S. Senate EO-L-1 0.02 

I also urge the Administration to revise the map of the midAtlantic OCS to more accurately reflect Virginia's resources as 

outlined in legislation that I introduced along with Senator Jim 

Webb, the Virginia Outer Continental Shelf Energy Production 

Act of 2011. That legislation also provides for revenue sharing 

with the Commonwealth of Virginia that would pay for 

transportation infrastructure improvements as well as land and 

water conservation, as well as alternative energy advancement. 

Comment noted.

Federal Agency Representatives (sorted by Agency)

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission

FA-E-4 0.01 

Supports Alternative B as Preferred Alternative. Alternative B has been identified as the Preferred Alternative.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.02 

Amend alternative B to 1) expand the geographic boundary of 

the time-area restriction on airgun seismic surveys to all coastal 

waters out to 55 km from shore and 2) require passive acoustic 

monitoring to detect nearby vocalizing marine mammals for all 

active acoustic surveys that have the potential to take marine 

mammals by harassment, including high resolution geophysical 

surveys. 

The time-area closures in Alternative B were based on specific areas that 

are either protected by laws and regulations (right whale critical habitat 

and Seasonal Management Areas [SMAs]) or documented as high use 

areas (sea turtle nesting in Brevard County, Florida). BOEM considered 

expanding the time-area closures based on the best available information 

at the time this EIS was drafted, areas likely to be of interest to industry

and information made available since the release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS which included BOEM’s 2012 Atlantic resource 

assessment (USDOI, BOEM, 2012) and NOAA’s cetacean stock 

assessment. Due to this review, BOEM determined that the extent of 

the closure will remain at 20 nmi from shore for Alternative B, the 

Preferred Alternative. BOEM will reconsider the value of this measure 

at the site-specific NEPA level as well as any new information available 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-37

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

at that time. In addition, BOEM has revised the Programmatic EIS to 

note that these time-area closures would align with any future changes in 

right whale critical habitat or SMAs (e.g., if they are expanded farther 

offshore) and will consider new information about NARW distribution. 

Alternative B, which has been identified as the Agency’s Preferred 

Alternative, includes the required use of PAM at all times for airgun 

surveys. If BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun high 

resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys using sources at or below 200 

kHz, effective monitoring technologies which could include PAM would 

be required. 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.03 

Add an analysis of the direct and indirect economic costs of 

implementing each alternative, describe the criteria the Bureau 

will use to select a preferred alternative, and add an additional 

comment period so that the public is able to review and judge 

that material and comment on it.

A cost-benefit analysis is not required to satisfy NEPA analysis 

requirements, particularly if there are important qualitative 

considerations (40 CFR § 1502.23). However, an EIS should indicate 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, 

which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision (40 CFR § 

1502.23). Therefore, a cost analysis for inclusion of the proposed 

mitigation measures has been performed and is included in Chapter 2.7. 

This Agency’s Preferred Alternative was not identified in the Draft 

Programmatic EIS because BOEM wished to examine the aggregate 

comment record before making that judgment. We have presented a 

rationale for how we chose our Agency’s Preferred Alternative in the 

Final Programmatic EIS in revised Chapter 2.7. There is no 

requirement in the NEPA regulations 40 CFR 1502.14(e) for an 

Agency’s Preferred Alternative to be identified in a Draft Programmatic 

EIS, only the Final Programmatic EIS. We do not believe the Draft 

Programmatic EIS needs to be reissued for public comment with a 

Preferred Alternative identified in it.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.04 

Increase BOEM’s efforts to maximize the utility of seismic 

data while minimizing the number and impacts of new seismic 

studies.

BOEM has considered the reduction of duplication of effort as a 

mitigation measure to reduce the overall sound input, for this Atlantic 

G&G Programmatic EIS, as well as in other forums such as the 

Mitigation and Monitoring Workshop BOEM hosted in November 2012, 

which was aimed at measures for the GOM, but could also be applied in 

other regions. At this phase there are few surveys currently occurring on 

the Atlantic OCS (only those related to marine minerals or renewable 

energy). 
L-38 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission

FA-E-4 0.05 

Include in the final environmental impact statement an 

alternative that, as part of the permitting process, would 

promote the further development, testing, and use of 

alternative, less harmful technologies to collect the required 

geophysical information.

Please see the response to comment FA-E-4:0.22.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.06 

Suggest that BOEM work with other agencies with related 

responsibilities, the oil and gas industry, scientists, 

conservation organizations, and other stakeholders to develop 

standards for baseline data collection and ensure the 

availability of adequate baseline information before moving 

forward with the proposed geological and geophysical surveys.

BOEM is working with NOAA and other agencies to develop better 

baseline information and standards for collecting such data (see the 

response to the next comment, FA-E-4:0.07). BOEM acknowledges that 

there is incomplete or unavailable information for marine mammals. 

However, the information identified as incomplete or unavailable is not 

“essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives” (40 CFR § 1502.22)

as described in Chapter 4.2.2.1, and we do not believe it is necessary to 

wait for new data collection before moving forward with the proposed 

action.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.07 

The data used to estimate takes of marine mammals in the area 

of interest is based on incomplete or outdated stock assessment 

surveys. To better convey the uncertainty or reliability of the 

density and take estimates used in the draft environmental 

impact statement, the Marine Mammal Commission 

recommends that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

provide confidence limits and sources of potential bias 

associated with the density and take estimates that were 

calculated for each species.

The U.S. Navy’s Operating Area Density Estimates (NODE) data are 

currently the best available data for estimating marine mammal densities 

in the Mid/South Atlantic Planning Areas. BOEM has used these data 

within the analyses contained within this Programmatic EIS. The data 

are also used as part of the marine mammal take estimations via the 

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM).

BOEM does agree and recognize that there are data gaps in marine 

mammal density information for these areas. We have revised 

Appendix E to better explain any limitations to the density inputs used 

in the AIM. To help improve density information, BOEM has partnered 

with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

and other organizations to fund projects to improve biological 

information on protected species in the U.S. Atlantic. Two notable 

programs include:

• Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS)

– This is an effort to collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the 

seasonal distribution and abundance of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds), marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard 

surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters. The project will also 

collect similar data at finer scales at several sites of particular interest to 

NMFS and BOEM. Importantly, AMAPPS also seeks to assess the 

population size of surveyed species at regional scales and develop 

models and associated tools to translate these survey data into seasonal, 

spatially explicit density estimates incorporating habitat characteristics 

(see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/protspp/mainpage /AMAPPS/
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-39

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

index.html and http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/ Environmental_

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/AT-10-x11.pdf). 

• Also, BOEM, working with NOAA, has developed the Multipurpose 

Marine Cadastre, an integrated marine information system that provides 

legal, physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common 

geographic information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/

Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-PurposeMarine-Cadastre-Map-Viewer/Index.aspx). 

Ultimately, NEPA requires that Federal agencies use the best available 

information in environmental impact statements, which BOEM has done. 

BOEM will continue to monitor the results of AMAPPS and other 

relevant studies (i.e., NOAA Sound and Cetacean Density Mapping) to 

ensure any updated data are considered as they become available to 

support future, site/permit-specific evaluations of individual survey 

applications and to inform an adaptive management plan. BOEM does 

not believe it is realistic to develop confidence limits for incidental take 

estimates at this time for several reasons. First, incidental take 

applications and authorizations generally do not contain this information. 

Second, we do not believe it is appropriate to calculate confidence limits 

for Level A takes because we expect them to be avoided to the extent 

practicable through mitigation. As noted in Appendix E, we estimated 

Level A takes without mitigation (other than time-area closures), which 

is the typical method used in incidental take requests and IHAs. Finally, 

with respect to Level B harassment takes, we note that the current NMFS 

criterion for pulsed sources (160 dB re 1 μPa) is widely recognized as a 

very simplistic predictor of behavioral responses and there is much 

ongoing research and discussion to develop refined behavioral criteria. 

Therefore, we believe that calculating confidence limits for numbers of 

Level B harassment takes would imply a level of quantification and 

statistical certainty that does not currently exist. 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.08 

The Bureau used 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) as the behavioral 

disturbance criteria for the calculation of Level B incidental 

takes from all sound sources, pulse and non-pulse. Although 

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is appropriate for pulse signals, such as 

airguns, it is not appropriate for nonimpulsive sound sources, 

such as chirp (shallow penetration) sub-bottom profilers. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service recently clarified that for 

non-impulsive sound sources, whether continuous or 

intermittent, Level B harassment is presumed to begin at 

The sound sources analyzed in the cited Federal Register document 

(76 FR 43639) are associated with the operation of a liquefied natural 

gas facility. They are not similar to the non-pulse sources, such as chirp 

(shallow penetration) subbottom profilers, proposed for this action. In 

the case of sub-bottom profilers operating in conjunction with seismic 

surveys, NMFS has used 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) as the behavioral 

disturbance criteria for the calculation of Level B incidental takes (e.g., 

78 FR 12720, 12730, February 25, 2013). NMFS uses 160 dB as the 

exposure level for calculating Level B harassment takes for most species 
L-40 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 μPa (76 Fed. Reg. 43639). 

Consistent with that guidance, the Level B harassment zone 

should be calculated based on that threshold rather than 160 dB 

re 1 μPa. To address this concern, the Marine Mammal 

Commission recommends that the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management use the 120-dB re 1 μPa threshold to recalculate 

the Level B harassment zone and associate takes for the use of 

shallow penetration sub-bottom profilers and other nonimpulsive sound sources.

in most cases. This threshold was established for underwater sound 

sources (except explosives and tactical active sonar) based on measured 

avoidance responses observed in whales in the wild. NOAA is 

developing relatively sophisticated new draft guidelines for determining 

acoustic impacts, including information for determining Level B 

harassment thresholds (70 FR 1871). The draft guidelines will undergo a 

rigorous review that includes internal agency review, public notice and 

comment, and peer review before any final product is published. At that 

time, BOEM will incorporate the new acoustic criteria into analyses.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.09 

The Bureau also noted that certain activities (e.g., drilling of 

deep stratigraphic or shallow test wells, geotechnical bottom 

sampling for renewable energy site characterization) would 

generate continuous sounds associated with the drilling rig or 

the support vessel’s dynamic positioning thrusters. However, 

the Bureau did not include those sound sources in its modeling 

or calculation of take estimates. To address this shortcoming, 

the Marine Mammal Commission recommends that the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management include in its calculation of 

estimated takes an assessment of all potential sound sources 

associated with geological and geophysical surveys, including 

exploratory drilling and vessel sounds.

The amount of drilling activity expected as part of the scenario in 

Chapter 3.0 is very modest. The need for the type of sound modeling 

recommended in the comment is not really necessary at the 

programmatic level based on the level of activity anticipated. Impulse 

sound from airguns remains the impacting factor of most concern and 

our modeling has focused on that. Potential impacts of continuous sound 

from vessels and equipment (including drilling) are addressed 

qualitatively in Chapter 4.2.2.2.2. 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 in site/permit-specific evaluations of individual survey 

applications. 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.10 

Require, as a term and condition for issuing a geological and 

geophysical permit, that applicants obtain authorization under 

section 101(a)(5)(A) or (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to 

those activities; such approval should also stipulate minimum 

requirements for mitigation, monitoring, and reporting, as 

outlined in Appendix C of the draft document.

Chapter 5.7.3 has been revised to state that 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, 

seismic surveys that could affect ESA-listed marine mammals shall not 

commence until such time that FWS and/or NMFS have issued, when 

warranted, the appropriate MMPA ITA and coordinated its requirements 

with those in any existing or new ESA Incidental Take Statement. 

BOEM has noted that operators will be required to satisfy the 

requirements of all other agencies before a permit will be issued. 

Operators will be required to abide by any mitigation requirements stated 

in this Programmatic EIS, in addition to those included in an issued 

MMPA Incidental Take Authorization or ESA Incidental Take 

Statement. 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission

FA-E-4 0.11 

Use the mitigation measures proposed for seismic airgun 

surveys (i.e., the seismic airgun survey protocol) as minimal 

mitigation measures for all high-resolution geophysical surveys 

and other sounds that have the potential to take marine 

mammals by Level A or Level B harassment

Please see the response to comment FA-E-4:0.26.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-41

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.12 

Develop comprehensive, standardized monitoring protocols for 

assessing the effects of geological and geophysical surveys and 

associated activities on marine mammals

Through the Adaptive Management process, mitigation requirements 

could be revised or new protocols developed if new information 

indicates that they are infeasible or could be made more effective. A 

discussion regarding adaptive management has been added to 

Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7 of the Final Programmatic 

EIS to better address how adaptive management will be incorporated in 

the program.

In November 2012, BOEM and NMFS sponsored a Mitigation and 

Monitoring Workshop for the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in Herndon, 

Virginia. This workshop involved multiple stakeholders, including other 

Federal agencies, industry, academia and NGOs. While the workshop 

focused on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the 

incidental take authorization process specific to geological and 

geophysical (G&G) activities in the GOM the goal of the workshop was

to seek individual expert input from stakeholders to develop “an 

appropriate suite of effective and practicable mitigations” and to develop 

“a comprehensive monitoring plan that [would] enable stakeholders to 

answer questions regarding marine mammals, the effects of industry 

activities, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.” While this 

workshop focused on the GOM region, the discussion could also be 

applied to the Atlantic OCS. 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.13 

The Bureau proposes to require that ramp-up and shut-down 

procedures be used to protect all marine mammals. The one 

situation where this may not be feasible is when dolphins 

approach a vessel or towed equipment to bow-ride or draft off 

the equipment. The frequency of such interactions and the best 

ways to manage them are not clear. To provide that 

information, the Marine Mammal Commission recommends 

that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management prepare annual 

summaries of marine mammal observer reports, including an 

analysis of the frequency and outcome of all marine mammalvessel interactions.

The survey protocols described in the Programmatic EIS in Chapter 2.0, 

and in greater detail in Appendix C, include the provision that the 

exclusion zone be kept clear of all marine mammals and sea turtles. The 

protocols are based on NTL 2012-JOINT-G02 (“Implementation of 

Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer 

Program”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012a), used for all G&G survey 

activity in the Gulf of Mexico. The protocols in the Programmatic EIS, 

airgun and HRG surveys, also include the provision that shutdown 

would not be required for delphinids approaching the vessel or towed 

equipment at a speed and vector that indicates a purposeful approach to 

bow-ride or chase towed equipment. In addition, an adaptive 

management approach will be taken with these protocols. BOEM and 

NMFS will use the PSO data collection results and annual reports to later 

determine if shutdowns are warranted. As part of the Reasonable and 

Prudent Measures outlined in the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS, 

BOEM will monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures and 

analyze data for both stationary and continuous sound sources. This 

information will be reported to NMFS as part of the requirements under 

the BO. 
L-42 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.14 

Require that all operators report immediately to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the local marine mammal

stranding network all injured and dead marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the proposed surveys, and suspend those activities if 

a marine mammal is seriously injured or killed and the injury or 

death could have been caused by those activities (e.g., a fresh

dead carcass is found).

The Programmatic EIS identifies the need for these reporting 

requirements and the development of future guidance similar to BOEM 

NTL 2012-G01 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected 

Species Reporting.” The NTL requires that vessel crews must report to 

NMFS and stranding hotline sightings of any injured or dead protected 

species (marine mammals and sea turtles) immediately, regardless of 

whether the injury or death is caused by the vessel. In addition, as 

discussed in Appendix C, the PSOs are required to provide reporting of 

all sightings.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission

FA-E-4 0.15 

Revise its cumulative effects analysis to provide a more 

rigorous and comprehensive assessment of the full impacts of 

sound and other human-caused and natural activities that affect 

marine resources in the proposed action area.

The impact analyses included in Chapter 4.0 have been revised to 

address this comment.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.16 

The continuous time-area restrictions along the east coast 

would protect breeding and migrating right whales as well as 

other cetaceans in near-coastal waters (e.g., bottlenose 

dolphins, common dolphins, white-sided dolphins, spotted 

dolphins, harbor porpoise, and humpback whales). However, 

the Commission believes that the proposed corridor is too 

narrow and should be expanded from 37 km (20 nmi) to 55 km 

(30 nmi) offshore. Prior to issuing its 2008 regulations to 

reduce whale-vessel collisions (73 Fed. Reg. 60173), the 

National Marine Fisheries Service had proposed a protective 

corridor out to 55.6 km (71 Fed. Reg. 36299). The width of the 

area was reduced based on potential economic impacts on 

shipping, even though it reduced protection for right whales. 

Since then, Schick et al. (2009) have confirmed that migrating 

right whales occur at least 55 km and as far as 200 km offshore 

in the mid-Atlantic. Hence, in the Commission’s view, the area 

that would be restricted under alternative B likely would not 

provide adequate protection for migrating whales.

BOEM considered expanding the closure, but will keep the 20 nmi timearea closure as proposed in the Draft Programmatic EIS. We believe that 

a 20-nmi time-area closure provides a credible protective measure for 

NARWs and other marine mammal species transiting through to critical 

habitats at either end of their north-south seasonal migration. BOEM has 

revised the Programmatic EIS to note that these time-area closures 

would align with any future changes in right whale critical habitat, 

SMAs (e.g., if they are expanded farther offshore), or Dynamic 

Management Areas (DMAs) and will consider new information about 

NARW distribution. Further, this EIS utilizes Adaptive Management, 

which is discussed in Chapter 1.7.6, and Appendix C, Section 7, 

allowing BOEM to require monitoring and mitigation measures based on 

the nature of the activity and the usefulness and costs of the measures.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.17 

The 40-km spacing requirement for vessels conducting 

simultaneous deep penetration airgun surveys is intended to 

prevent the merger of two ensonified areas to create a single, 

much larger obstacle to migration. The use of passive acoustic 

monitoring would provide additional assurance that marine 

mammals in the area would be detected and shut-down 

procedures implemented as appropriate. It also would provide 

a more accurate estimate of the number of animals exposed to 

PAM is a required part of the airgun mitigation protocol for Alternative 

B, which has been identified as the Preferred Alternative. In addition, in 

some specific instances PAM would be required for non airgun HRG 

surveys. BOEM agrees that PAM technology can be a useful tool for 

implementing mitigation, detecting impacts and even providing basic 

presence/absence information. Appendix C has been revised to provide 

additional discussion of PAM. With regard to requiring PAM during 

non airgun HRG surveys, please see the response to comment 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-43

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

airgun noise. This technology already is required for certain 

seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic, and 

recent advances have improved its use for detecting, 

classifying, and localizing marine mammals using open-source 

software (e.g., PAMGUARD). The Commission has 

commented often on the limited effectiveness of visual 

observations and believes that passive acoustic monitoring 

should be used during all surveys with active sound sources 

that may take marine mammals, including high resolution 

geophysical surveys.

FA-E-4:0.26.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.18 

The Commission further recommends that the Bureau amend 

Alternative B to 

1) expand the geographic boundary of the time-area restriction 

on airgun seismic surveys to all coastal waters out to 55 km 

from shore and 

2) require passive acoustic monitoring to detect nearby 

vocalizing marine mammals for all active acoustic surveys that 

have the potential to take marine mammals by harassment, 

including high resolution geophysical surveys.

The time-area closures in Alternative B were based on specific areas that 

are either protected by laws and regulations (right whale critical habitat 

and Seasonal Management Areas [SMAs]) or documented as high use 

areas (sea turtle nesting in Brevard County, Florida). BOEM considered 

expanding the time-area closures based on the best available information 

at the time this EIS was drafted, areas likely to be of interest to industry,

and information made available since the release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS, which included BOEM’s 2012 Atlantic resource 

assessment (USDOI, BOEM, 2012) and NOAA’s cetacean stock 

assessment. Due to this review, BOEM determined that the extent of 

the closure will remain at 20 nmi from shore for Alternative B, the 

Preferred Alternative. BOEM will reconsider the value of this measure 

at the site-specific NEPA level, as well as any new information available 

at that time. In addition, BOEM has revised the Programmatic EIS to 

note that these time-area closures would align with any future changes in 

right whale critical habitat or SMAs (e.g., if they are expanded farther 

offshore) and will consider new information about NARW distributionn. 

Alternative B, which has been identified as the Agency’s Preferred 

Alternative, includes the required use of PAM at all times for airgun 

surveys. If BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for non-airgun highresolution geophysical (HRG) surveys using sources at or below 

200 kHz, effective monitoring technologies that could include PAM 

would be required.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.19 

If seismic activities proceed as projected, the potential for 

multiple surveys of the same areas by different applicants is 

considerable (Figure E-19, page E-59)—especially during 2013 

and 2014, the two years of highest projected seismic survey 

activity. Conducting multiple seismic surveys of the same area 

will increase risks to marine mammals and marine ecosystems 

unnecessarily with no meaningful gain in information. 

BOEM has considered the reduction of duplication of effort as a 

mitigation measure to reduce the overall sound input, for this Atlantic 

G&G Programmatic EIS, as well as in other forums such as the 

Mitigation and Monitoring Workshop BOEM hosted in November 2012, 

which was aimed at measures for the GOM, but could also be applied in 

other regions. At this phase there are few surveys currently occurring on 

the Atlantic OCS (only those related to marine minerals or renewable 
L-44 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Permitting unnecessarily duplicative surveys is contrary to the 

charge of balancing orderly resource development with 

protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments, as 

directed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 

U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), as amended. The Bureau stated that they 

considered coordinating and consolidating seismic surveys to 

eliminate duplication of survey effort but rejected this approach 

because the vessel spacing requirements of alternative B would 

limit concurrent surveys. The Commission agrees that 

alternative B would prohibit concurrent overlapping or 

immediately adjacent surveys, but it would not prevent two or 

more operators from conducting multiple, unnecessarily 

redundant seismic surveys of the same area at a different time 

of year or in subsequent years. Rather than re-survey large 

areas of the Atlantic for which two-dimensional seismic 

surveys already exist, or conduct multiple overlapping surveys 

of the same areas, the Bureau should require the oil and gas 

industry to make the most use of existing, publicly available 

seismic data. The Bureau also should provide broader access to 

seismic data that has been collected but that may not yet be in 

the public domain. This could help to focus and restrict the 

scope of future surveys to areas that show the most promise for 

oil and gas development, especially considering that oil and gas 

resources in the south and mid-Atlantic are expected to be 

relatively small (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 2011, 

Post et al. 2012). The Bureau also should encourage 

companies that are engaged in or interested in acquiring 

seismic data in the same areas to collaborate on data collection 

to limit the number of surveys that are required.

energy). Further, at this time. BOEM projected a level of activity to 

construct a scenario for this NEPA evaluation. The actual level of 

activity that results may differ. A site-specific evaluation under NEPA is 

necessary before this Agency issues any G&G authorization for oil and 

gas G&G activity. Once issued, a permit is valid for up to one year. The 

applicant would need to carefully plan the proposed work to ensure that

it can be accomplished within the year. Geological and geophysical

surveys are conducted by publicly or privately owned companies. These 

companies usually carry out surveys on a speculative basis in order to 

sell the data generated by those surveys on the market. Making the data 

publicly available would eliminate any market for its sale, which would 

eliminate the incentive for its collection.

Eliminating “duplication of survey effort” (i.e., reducing the cumulative 

survey activity expended by pre- or post-lease operators) is not as 

straightforward as indicated in this comment. The business models for 

prelease geophysical operators typically call for joint licensing of an 

acquired data set by oil and gas operators. That business model, in 

effect, is a market driven rationing of survey activity. If a geophysical 

operator does not have industry operators lined-up and accepting the 

particular parameters for a proposed survey the deployment would not 

move ahead because the geophysical operator would not make an 

adequate profit. Geophysical operators will not deploy a survey unless 

they are comfortable their expenses and profit are covered. The existing 

prelease business model has a certain self-regulating aspect. The idea of 

eliminating duplicative surveys would require a degree of coordination 

and direction of the private sector by BOEM that is not part of the 

operating relationship between this Agency and industry. The 

limitations of existing seismic data in the AOI were explained in 

Chapter 2.5.3. Briefly, reliance on existing data, or digitally 

reprocessed data, does not meet the stated purpose and need as it does 

not provide accurate data on which to base regulatory and industry 

decisions. BOEM cannot compel the public release of proprietary data. 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.20 

The Commission has emphasized the need to minimize 

redundant seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico and the 

Arctic. The Bureau has considered methods to achieve that 

objective under the current regulatory framework, but the 

Commission believes more could be done. To that end, the 

Marine Mammal Commission recommends that the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management increase its efforts to maximize the 

utility of seismic data while minimizing the number and 

impacts of new seismic studies. Steps that could be taken

Please see the response to the preceding comment FA-E-4:0.19. Also, 

Chapter 2.5.5 of the Programmatic EIS addresses the issue of 

consolidating or coordinating surveys. As noted Chapter 2.5.5, it is not 

within BOEM’s mission to directly undertake G&G activities, except in 

the rare circumstance BOEM is part of a joint industry project. Chapter 

2.5.5 also notes that 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 

the USDOE or USGS.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-45

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

include: analyzing fully all existing, publicly available seismic 

data; encouraging industry to release seismic data that is not yet 

in the public domain; collaborating on seismic surveys in areas 

of common interest; limiting the geographic scope, frequency, 

sound output, and/or duration of surveys that occur in any 

given year, especially in preferred marine mammal habitat 

areas; having the Bureau conduct seismic surveys and making 

them available to the industry for a fee; auctioning the right to 

conduct seismic surveys in certain planning areas or blocks; 

and providing tax or other incentives to companies that use 

alternative, less harmful technologies for the collection of 

seismic data.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.21 

The Bureau rejected an alternative that would have prohibited 

the use of seismic airguns. Rather than immediately 

prohibiting airguns, the Bureau should seek an orderly 

transition by industry from airguns to alternative technologies. 

In addition to time, such a transition undoubtedly will require 

permitting incentives and additional research investments. But 

unless the Bureau steps forward and facilitates a transition to 

new, less harmful technologies, the development and use of 

those technologies will be stalled.

BOEM has considered the use of alternative technologies to airguns as a 

mitigation measure to reduce the overall sound input, for this Atlantic 

G&G Programmatic EIS, as well as in other forums such as the 

Mitigation and Monitoring Workshop BOEM hosted in November 2012, 

which was aimed at measures for the GOM, but could also be applied in 

other regions. Through our Environmental Studies Program, we recently 

sponsored a workshop on “Quieting Technologies for Reducing Noise 

during Seismic Surveying and Pile Driving” (February 25-27, 2013, in 

Silver Spring, Maryland), to discuss this very topic. BOEM continues to 

be engaged in the development of new technologies. At this phase there 

are few surveys currently occurring on the Atlantic OCS (only those 

related to marine minerals or renewable energy). Further, at this time, 

BOEM believes that the mitigation measures in Alternative B provide 

adequate protections to the environment. The construction of our 

alternatives followed the simple premise that to be a valid alternative it 

would have to be economically feasible, technically viable, and fulfill 

the purpose and need for the proposed action. We found that we could 

not fashion a NEPA alternative based on one or many of alternative 

acoustic sources to impulse seismic airguns that are described in 

Appendix C, Section 6 because none of them were economically 

feasible or technically viable for commercial deployment; all of them 

being in various stages of development. We do seek an orderly 

transition by industry toward alternatives to the impulse airgun. BOEM 

also believes that permitting incentives are worthy of consideration. 

Incentives may take the form of selective lifting of certain mitigation 

measures in the seismic protocol, or operating in an area at a time that 

airguns are not permitted. The ability of BOEM, however, to compel an 

applicant to deploy a specific technology the applicant may not consider

as adequate to their purpose has not been tested.
L-46 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.22 

Recommends that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

include in its final environmental impact statement an 

alternative that, as part of the permitting process, would 

promote the further development, testing, and use of 

alternative, less harmful technologies to collect the required 

geophysical information.

BOEM does seek to promote the further development, testing and use of 

alternative technologies. Through our Environmental Studies Program, 

we recently sponsored a workshop on “Quieting Technologies for 

Reducing Noise during Seismic Surveying and Pile Driving” 

(February 25-27, 2013, in Silver Spring, Maryland), and we will 

continue to work cooperatively with a variety of interested stakeholders 

to evaluate the development of new and alternative technologies. BOEM 

has revised and updated the discussion of non airgun alternatives in

Chapter 2.5.6 and Appendix C, Section 6. However, we do not believe 

that constructing a NEPA alternative is the appropriate mechanism to 

accomplish this objective. NEPA alternatives must be developed to meet 

the agency’s purpose and need. We evaluated a non airgun alternative in 

Chapter 2.5.6.8, and found that it would not meet the agency’s purpose 

and need because currently, none of the non airgun alternatives are 

economically feasible or technically viable for commercial deployment; 

all of them being in various stages of development. We do seek an 

orderly transition by industry toward the use of alternatives to the 

impulse airgun. BOEM also believes permitting incentives are worthy of 

consideration. Incentives may take the form of selective lifting of 

certain mitigation measures in the seismic protocol, or operating in an 

area or at a time that airguns are not permitted. The ability of BOEM to 

compel an applicant to deploy a specific technology they may not 

consider as adequate to their purpose has not been tested. 

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.23 

The Bureau has acknowledged that baseline information is 

lacking for many marine mammals in the area of interest. 

However, the Bureau has concluded that the cost of acquiring 

such information would be exorbitant and such information 

could not be collected in time to evaluate the impacts of the 

proposed action. The Commission agrees that the collection of 

comprehensive baseline information requires a long-term and 

consistent commitment of effort and resources, and that federal 

funding for such studies has been limited. Nevertheless, such 

information is needed to inform decision-makers regarding 

whether, where, and under what conditions to conduct activities 

that could have acute or long-term adverse effects on marine 

mammals and other marine species. In addition, the 

Commission does not consider the cost of collecting such 

information to be exorbitant. Furthermore, the failure to invest 

in the necessary studies undermines our professed intent to 

manage our marine resources on the basis of sound science.

BOEM acknowledges that there is incomplete or unavailable information 

for marine mammals; however, the information identified as incomplete 

or unavailable is not “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives” 

(40 CFR § 1502.22), as described in Chapter 4.2.2.1. We agree with the 

comment that “the collection of comprehensive baseline information 

requires a long-term and consistent commitment of effort and resources, 

and that Federal funding for such studies has been limited.” At the time 

this Agency's predecessor was engaged in an active Atlantic oil and gas 

leasing program in the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s, environmental 

studies were conducted at a level and intensity that paralleled the 

incipient opening of this OCS region to that activity. Because of the

substantial hiatus in the oil and gas leasing program, BOEM’s emphasis 

on conducting baseline studies has been reduced. Yet, BOEM is charged 

with making a determination in light of imperfect knowledge. To help 

improve density information for future decision-making, BOEM has 

partnered with NOAA and other organizations to fund projects to 

improve biological information on protected species in the U.S. Atlantic. 

Two notable programs include:
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-47

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

• Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) 

– This is an effort to collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the 

seasonal distribution and abundance of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds), marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard 

surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters. The project will also 

collect similar data at finer scales at several sites of particular interest to 

NMFS and BOEM. Importantly, AMAPPS also seeks to assess the 

population size of surveyed species at regional scales and develop 

models and associated tools to translate these survey data into seasonal, 

spatially explicit density estimates incorporating habitat characteristics 

(see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/protspp/mainpage/AMAPPS/

index.html and http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Environmental_

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/AT-10-x11.pdf). 

• Multipurpose Marine Cadastre – BOEM, working with NOAA, has

developed an integrated marine information system that provides legal, 

physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic 

information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-GasEnergy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-Purpose-Marine-CadastreMap-Viewer/Index.aspx).

Ultimately, NEPA requires that Federal agencies use the best available 

information in environmental impact statements, which BOEM has done. 

BOEM will continue to monitor the results of AMAPPS and other 

relevant studies (i.e., NOAA Sound and Cetacean Density Mapping) to 

ensure any updated data are considered as they become available to 

support future, site/permit-specific evaluations of individual survey 

applications.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.24 

The Bureau has not been consistent in its guidance to 

applicants regarding compliance with the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, and this has led to confusion and litigation. To 

avoid confusion for applicants seeking permits to conduct 

geological and geophysical surveys in the south and midAtlantic, the Marine Mammal Commission recommends that 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management require, as a term 

and condition for issuing a geological and geophysical permit, 

that applicants obtain authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) 

or (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to take small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental to those activities; such 

approval should also stipulate minimum requirements for 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting, as outlined in Appendix 

C of the draft document.

Chapter 5.7.3 has been revised to state that 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, seismic 

surveys that could affect ESA-listed marine mammals shall not 

commence until such time that FWS and/or NMFS have issued, when 

warranted, the appropriate MMPA ITA and have coordinated its 

requirements with those in any existing or new ESA Incidental Take 

Statement. 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. Operators will be required to 
L-48 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

abide by any mitigation requirements stated in this Programmatic EIS, in 

addition to those included in an issued MMPA Incidental Take 

Authorization or ESA Incidental Take Statement.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.25 

The Bureau has proposed that the exclusion zone for each 

survey would be determined on a survey-specific basis, but in 

any case would not be less than 500 m for airgun seismic 

surveys and 200 m for high-resolution geophysical surveys. 

The Commission has previously commented on the need to 

obtain in-situ sound propagation measurements to calculate 

survey-specific exclusion zones, and commends the Bureau for 

including that provision in its proposed mitigation measures for 

both airgun surveys and high-resolution geophysical surveys.

Comment noted.

Melissa Herman 

on behalf of 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Ph.D., 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

FA-E-4 0.26 

As seismic airgun and high-resolution geophysical surveys 

both use active sound sources that have the potential to take 

marine mammals by Level A or Level B harassment, it is 

unclear why the Bureau has proposed different mitigation 

measures for the two types of surveys. The survey protocols 

proposed for high resolution geophysical surveys are 

inconsistent with those proposed by Cape Wind Associates for 

geophysical surveys, which included the use of ramp-up 

procedures, multiple observers, and a minimum 500-m 

exclusion zone. The Commission believes that the mitigation 

measures proposed for airgun surveys, including the use of 

passive acoustic monitoring as identified under alternative B 

and expanded to include also monitoring of high-resolution 

geophysical surveys, are minimal requirements for all surveys 

involving active sound sources. Therefore, the Marine 

Mammal Commission recommends that the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management use the mitigation measures proposed for 

seismic airgun surveys (i.e., the seismic airgun survey protocol) 

as minimal mitigation measures for all high-resolution 

geophysical surveys and other sounds that have the potential to 

take marine mammals by Level A or Level B harassment.

The rationale for the different protocols is provided in Appendix C

(Section 3.2.2 for the airgun survey protocol and Section 3.3.2 for the 

HRG Survey Protocol). Considerations that require separate protocols 

include differences in acoustic sources, estimated Level A and B 

harassment ranges, activity locations, and vessel size and operating 

characteristics. Non-airgun HRG surveys typically only involve the use 

boomer and/or chirp subbottom profiler, side scan sonar, and multibeam/ 

interferometric /single beam fathometers. The acoustic characteristics of 

these electromechanical sources are quite different from airguns as 

explained in Appendix D, and the corresponding exclusion zones are 

smaller. Lower-frequency HRG sources (e.g., boomer, chirp) are often 

operated at partial power settings, operated at filtered frequency 

bandwidth, and towed closer to the bottom, reducing the intensity and 

zone of ensonification and corresponding likelihood of animal exposure

and potential impacts. In addition, comparatively small vessels are 

typically deployed for these small-footprint and short-duration surveys, 

where sound-producing equipment is vessel-mounted or towed a short 

distance behind the vessel. Based on the Programmatic EIS analysis, we 

recognize that there are potential acoustic impacts from the 

electromechanical sources and we have developed a fit-for-use HRG 

protocol for that type of survey, supported by the rationale provided in 

Appendix C, Section 3.3.1. If BOEM authorizes nighttime operations 

or if operations continue during periods of reduced visibility for nonairgun HRG surveys using sources operating at or below 200 kHz, 

effective monitoring technologies which could include PAM would be 

required. 

Anita Barnett, 

National Park 

Service

FA-E-3 0.01 

No comments Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-49

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.01 

NMFS’ Level A harassment criteria are for both pulsed and 

continuous sounds. There are numerous locations where the 

PEIS states that Level A criteria are specific to pulsed sounds, 

with the first example found in the summary on page xiii. 

Please revise accordingly 

Text has been revised to indicate Level A harassment refers to both 

continuous and impulsive sounds. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.02 

The additional language regarding jurisdictional authority 

included in the PEIS is helpful (notably, additions to Sections 

2.3, 3.3.1, 3.4.1). However, it remains unclear what 

jurisdictional relationship may exist between BOEM and COE 

authorities as relates to survey activities in State waters. Our 

concern is that consultations required by law for protected 

species be conducted as appropriate, whether by BOEM, COE, 

or individual operators. The PEIS should include sufficient 

information to clarify for the reader what entity would be 

responsible for requesting required consultations under various 

scenarios (e.g., site characterization surveys for renewable 

energy projects in state waters). Example questions for 

clarification: Section 3.3.1 states that BOEM does not permit 

site characterization surveys but requires the results of these 

surveys to be made available before a COP may be approved. 

Are these surveys permitted by COE in state waters? What if 

they occur outside of state waters – is there any permitting 

authority there? These surveys could potentially be noncompliant with the MMPA unless consultation regarding

incidental take were conducted, but there is no apparent 

mechanism by which operators are made aware of this 

requirement. How and when do results of COE-permitted 

prospecting surveys, as described in Section 3.4.1, come into 

BOEM’s permitting process?

Text has been added to Chapters 1.6.2, 1.6.10, and 3.3.1 of the Final 

Programmatic EIS to address and clarify the jurisdictional issues. In 

addition, Chapter 1.7.5 has been added to identify future actions 

required by various laws and statutes that must be completed before 

G&G surveys under BOEM's jurisdiction may begin. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.03 

The PEIS references degrees of take avoidance that may be 

accomplished through permutations of time-area closure for 

right whales (e.g., Section 2.1.2.1, “avoid about two-thirds of 

incidental takes”). Location in the document where details of 

these analyses may be found should be referenced.

Chapter 2.1.3.1.1 (and other places where similar statement are made) 

has been revised to refer to supporting information in Appendix E. 

Incidental take was modeled under the scenario of no time-area closures 

for NARWs. Comparing that estimate with the estimated number of 

incidental takes with the time-area closures in place (Alternative A), 

there would be about a 67% reduction in the number of right whale 

incidental takes with the implementation of the time-area closures. 

Although incidental take was not modeled for Alternative B, it is 

estimated that the expanded time-area closure would avoid 

approximately 80% of the incidental takes of NARWs over the period of 

the Programmatic EIS (as compared with no closures) based on the 

geographic and seasonal distribution of right whale densities.
L-50 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.04 

Regarding time-area closures, the PEIS contains a notable 

departure from language provided for NOAA’s review during 

the preliminary draft phase. That document specified that no 

G&G surveys would occur in critical habitat during the 

breeding and calving period for right whales (11/15-4/15), 

while allowing non-airgun surveys within Seasonal 

Management Areas during the period of effectiveness 

(11/1-4/30) in support of the renewable energy and marine 

minerals program areas. The PEIS has been changed to allow 

these types of surveys (i.e., non-airgun HRG surveys for 

renewables/marine minerals) in right whale critical habitat. We 

recommend that the original requirements be restored (i.e., no 

surveys at all within critical habitat during the specified time 

period) or, if not, request that BOEM describe explicitly what 

mechanism exists in the jurisdictional relationship between 

BOEM and COE that would ensure these “case-by-case” 

surveys are subject to interagency consultation under section 7 

of the ESA. Note that figures 2-1 and 2-3 reflect preliminary 

draft language (i.e., they show that critical habitat is a ‘nosurvey’ zone rather than a ‘non-airgun HRG survey on case-bycase basis’ zone).

We acknowledge that there was a change between preliminary draft 

phase and Draft Programmatic EIS. In addition, the Airgun and HRG 

Survey Protocols have been clarified since the release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS and have been finalized with NMFS through formal 

Section 7 consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion 

(Appendix A). We have also identified the review and approval process 

that would be utilized for site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5. 

BOEM has noted that operators will be required to satisfy the 

requirements of all other agencies before a permit will be issued. Prior 

to conducting any G&G activities, operators must submit MMPA 

authorizations to BOEM. Operators will be required to abide by any 

mitigation requirements stated in this Programmatic EIS, in addition to 

those included in an issued MMPA ITA or ESA ITS. Generally, the 

COE has no regulatory interest in OCS activities, unless a bottomfounded structure is proposed. In those rare circumstances, COE may 

prepare a separate Statement of Findings/EA or adopt BOEM’s NEPA 

evaluation prior to issuing a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit. 

The COE or another Federal agency may also undertake G&G 

prospecting activities on the OCS in support of Civil Works project 

authorized by Congress. In those circumstances, such G&G operations 

are specifically exempt from BOEM’s authorization process. In 

instances when an entity besides a Federal agency or a Federal contractor 

is undertaking G&G prospecting on the OCS, BOEM may authorize 

those activities. BOEM may also require and regulate geophysical 

monitoring pursuant to the use of OCS sand resources in beach 

nourishment and coastal restoration projects, including those undertaken 

by the COE under a specific Congressional authorization. In State 

waters, the COE may permit or undertake G&G activities pursuant to 

their direct Congressional authorizations, and or Clean Water Act 

Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 authorities, 

including those related to renewable energy and marine minerals

development. Pursuant to their regulatory authority and their 

Nationwide Permit Program, the COE and BOEM may become 

cooperating agencies to address the environmental compliance 

requirements for OCS renewable site characterization activities, in 

instances where there are connected actions that span both the OCS and 

State waters. Under the renewable energy regulation at 30 CFR part 585 

BOEM will not approve SAPs, COPs, or GAPs without adequate G&G 

surveys for which guidance on their conduct is available from BOEM. 

See Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 for additional details. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-51

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.05 

The options for time-area closures are based upon right whale 

critical habitat and SMAs. As such, we request that BOEM 

note these would be responsive to any future revisions of 

critical habitat or changes to SMAs.

See Chapter 2.1.3.1.1. Text has been revised to address this comment.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.06 

New language describing HRG survey protocols (Section 

2.1.2.3; Appendix C, Section 3.3.1.4) is problematic, as it 

implies prior agreement with NMFS that use of these measures 

would preclude possibility of incidental harassment and 

eliminate need for ITA under the MMPA. We suggest BOEM 

describe the required measure using different language that 

simply describes the measure and why it is proposed (i.e., why 

it would be effective in mitigating impacts to marine mammals) 

without suggesting that the inclusion of such a measure 

indicates any regulatory decision or course of action on NMFS’ 

part. Specific example, Measure 3a: We would not suggest 

rejecting these measures, but you should be very clear that this 

does not infer compliance with the MMPA. It is unlikely that 

we would concur with a determination that recurring action of 

this nature would absolutely not result in incidental harassment 

due to the fact that not all marine mammals are likely to be 

detected. The language used – “BOEM will consult with 

NMFS about additional requirements” - implies that NMFS has 

agreed that use of these measures eliminates potential for 

harassment. Further, use of the word "authorize" may be 

confused with take authorizations that may be issued by 

NMFS.

The HRG Survey Protocol has been reworded as suggested to remove 

the implication that adoption of the particular mitigation measure would 

result in a particular NMFS regulatory decision or course of action.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.07 

In addition, it is unclear how an applicant could “demonstrate”

that a zone of any given size could be effectively monitored.

There is a distinction between “effectively monitored” and 

being able to detect 100% of animals that may occur within a 

zone ensonified to 160 dB. The follow-on passage does not 

draw that distinction. Example language: “The BOEM 

anticipates that if an operator can effectively monitor the 

160-dB zone to prevent both Level A and B harassment of 

marine mammals, then it would be reasonable to assume that an 

ITA under the MMPA may not be necessary for that particular 

survey. Therefore, the 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.” BOEM is 

explicitly drawing conclusions about future regulatory 

decisions to be made by NMFS and is equating “effective 

The HRG Survey Protocol has been reworded as suggested to remove 

the implication that effective monitoring implies 100% detection and that 

adoption of a particular mitigation measure would result in a particular 

NMFS regulatory decision or course of action. 
L-52 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

monitoring” with 100% detection of marine mammals, which is 

likely impossible.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.08 

In the draft seismic airgun survey protocol, there are a number 

of instances where BOEM proposes specific time periods (e.g., 

time period for ramp-up, time period not requiring new rampup, requirements relating to borehole surveys) without 

explaining the rationale for the specific measures. We reiterate 

our recommendation, provided during the preliminary draft 

phase, to justify the specifics of the draft protocol.

Appendix C has been revised to explain the rationale for the specifics of 

the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.09 

BOEM indicates that as a result of many years of oil and gas 

development activity in the Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR), 

extensive surveys have identified known areas of sensitive 

biological resources that are avoided through the 

implementation of Notices to Lessees (NTLs). BOEM 

indicates mitigative measures similar to the GOMR NTLs are 

expected to provide protective buffers to the benthic resources 

of the South Atlantic; however, specific measures have not 

been developed. Because oceanic features, such as the Gulf 

Stream, and the extent of important and valuable benthic 

habitats (e.g., corals, live bottoms, hard bottoms) in the South 

Atlantic differ from those in the Gulf of Mexico the mitigative 

measures contained in GOMR NTLs may not be directly 

transferable for application in the South Atlantic. BOEM 

should indicate that specific avoidance measures (e.g., buffer 

zones) will be established through required consultations such 

as the EFH Consultation with NMFS.

BOEM has initiated an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation with 

NMFS for the Programmatic EIS. NMFS has requested that BOEM 

conduct further EFH assessments for site/permit-specific G&G 

applications or permitting activities. Buffer zones and mitigation 

measures for impacts will be identified during site/permit-specific 

reviews and assessments. When Notices to Lessees (NTLs) are written 

for the Atlantic, buffer zones will be included in those NTLs. In 

addition, BOEM Studies program is working to fill in information gaps 

concerning sensitive biological resources in the Atlantic through ongoing 

and planned studies. Another source of information for sensitive habitats 

in the Atlantic is the EcoSpatial Information Database (ESID), which is a 

BOEM funded database for the Atlantic that includes scientific studies 

with geospatial data. See http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/

Environmental_ Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_

Region/Ongoing_Studies/GM-08-x13.pdf. 

Future actions relative to EFH are discussed in Chapter 1.7.5.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.10 

BOEM indicates site-specific information will be required, to 

include mapping and pre-deployment photographic surveys, to 

effectively avoid impacting important and valuable benthic 

communities. Minimum standards for benthic mapping and 

surveys should be described and defined. As an example, the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Guidelines 

for Conducting Offshore Benthic Surveys provides guidelines 

for developing appropriate protocols for deep water habitat 

mapping and biological resource surveys. 

The Programmatic EIS has been revised to include additional 

information on this issue. BOEM's Renewable Energy Program is in the 

process of developing benthic survey guidance (see http://

www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/

Regulatory_Information/Habitat%20Guidelines.pdf. 

BOEM’s Marine Minerals Program specifies that a survey to map hardbottom, coral reef, outcrops, and other environmentally sensitive benthic 

habitat in the proposed borrow area and affected nearshore may be 

required for areas that have not been characterized or have outdated 

characterization (defined by BOEM). In addition, for the renewable 

energy program, BOEM has issued Guidelines for Providing Geological 

and Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 

30 CFR part 585.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-53

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.11 

BOEM should also consider adoption of a classification 

scheme to standardize habitat definitions and descriptions for 

benthic survey reporting requirements. As demonstrated in 

BOEM’s analysis (Section 4.2.5.; pages 4-106 to 4-115), over 

time a wide variety of terms and descriptors have been used to 

characterize similar habitats. The Department of the Interior 

and NOAA have representatives on the Federal Geographic 

Data Committee developing the Coastal and Marine Ecological 

Classification Standard Version 4.0 (CMECS). CMCES is an 

ecological classification system applicable for coastal and 

marine systems, which, facilitates integration of existing data 

into a single framework. 

BOEM contributed to the development of CMECS and is working to 

ensure that all future BOEM funded coastal and marine habitat mapping 

projects are consistent with this new classification framework. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.12 

Red Drum is no longer managed by the SAFMC and therefore 

does not have EFH designated in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. 

Tables 4-19 and 4-21 have been revised to address this comment.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.13 

BOEM focuses on sound pressure levels in Appendix D and its 

analysis of fish impacts from seismic surveys (Appendix J). 

However, many fish and invertebrates are sensitive to particle 

motion (both otoliths in fish and statocysts in invertebrates act 

as accelerometers) and to gain a full understanding of the 

effects of sound on these animals it may be necessary to 

measure or estimate particle motion. Based on outcomes from 

a recent BOEM-hosted hydroacoustic workshop for fish and 

invertebrates, and other efforts (e.g., CEF 2011, Worchester 

2006), particle motion may be a more appropriate measure of 

potential impact for many species. BOEM should consider 

including discussion of particle motion changes due to seismic 

surveys.

Revisions have been made to Appendix J to address the issue of particle 

motion. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.14 

Additionally, modeling increased particle motion throughout 

various portions of the water column to determine affects (i.e., 

potential exposure conditions) to habitat quality and species 

should be considered, identified as incomplete or unavailable 

information, or identified as a future research need.

Revisions have been made to Appendix J to address the issue of particle 

motion. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.15 

ONMS supports Alternative B as the preferred alternative 

because this alternative reduces peak cumulative ensonification 

potential from multiple simultaneous surveys through the use 

of separation distances between surveys and reduces the risk of 

injury to right whales in and around Monitor and Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuaries through both more conservative 

time-area restrictions for airgun surveys and the use of passive 

Comment noted.
L-54 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

acoustic monitoring during surveys, which could enhance 

detection of vocally active species like right whales and thus 

trigger mitigation to reduce their ensonification within 

sanctuaries.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.16 

Any activity prohibited by ONMS regulations (15 CFR part 

922) occurring inside a national marine sanctuary requires an 

ONMS permit. BOEM described activities under this category 

include: drilling, coring, exploratory sampling, and placing 

sensors on the seafloor. The DPEIS states that these activities 

will not be permitted in national marine sanctuaries, thus this 

category of impacts is not commented on further here.

Comment noted.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.17 

ONMS recommends that National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) section 304(d) consultation requirements be clarified. 

Federal actions occurring inside a national marine sanctuary 

that are likely to injure a sanctuary resource require 

consultation with ONMS. The action does not have to be a 

prohibited activity to trigger sanctuary consultation. BOEM 

proposed activities under this category could include use of 

airgun and other sources during full-scale and HRG surveys 

conducted inside sanctuaries and vessel traffic associated with 

survey activities. Generation of noise by these activities is not 

prohibited and does not require a permit, but is likely to injure 

sanctuary resources and therefore triggers the sanctuary 

consultation requirement. Increased risk of vessel-whale 

collisions within sanctuaries may also be addressed through 

consultation. Federal actions that occur outside national marine 

sanctuaries and are likely to injure sanctuary resources within 

the boundaries of the sanctuary also trigger sanctuary 

consultation. BOEM proposed activities in this category could 

include such impacts as turbidity from drilling activities 

occurring adjacent to sanctuary boundaries or noise from 

airgun or HRG surveys conducted outside a sanctuary that 

ensonify sanctuary waters and are likely to impact resources 

within the sanctuary.

Chapter 5.7.6 has been revised to address the fact that non-prohibited 

activities within a NMS may trigger consultation.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.18 

ONMS suggests that, where appropriate, BOEM should 

identify that BOEM and ONMS are working on the procedures 

and specific stipulations that will conservatively indicate when 

sanctuary consultation is likely to be required associated with 

BOEM permitting of individual surveys. ONMS is providing

notice of the need for NMSA consultation by separate letter.

BOEM has personnel dedicated to ensuring required compliance with 

regulatory statutes, including the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. 

These personnel will ensure required compliance at the programmatic as 

well as site-specific levels of G&G activities. BOEM and BSEE have 

begun this process through the November 2, 2012, letter to Mr. Daniel 

Basta the Director of the ONMS and a subsequent teleconference with 

ONMS staff on May 20, 2013, and October 22, 2013.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-55

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.19 

Additionally, ONMS believes that additional mitigation 

measures should be considered for the Gray’s Reef and 

Monitor National Marine Sanctuaries that are recognized as 

important areas for recreational and scientific diving. 

Ensonification levels in either sanctuary should be no greater 

than 145dB. Scientific and recreational diving takes place year 

round in Gray’s Reef NMS. ONMS also asserts that 

notification through “Local Notice to Mariners” is not an 

adequate strategy to inform the affected public of G&G 

activities as it is not widely distributed or recognized as a 

source of information by recreational boaters and/or divers. A 

well-advertised central source such as a website could be 

established to provide divers with up-to-date information on 

G&G activities, in particular those involving air-gun surveys 

that might impact divers. BOEM should consider conditioning 

their permits with specific stipulations that require that the 

operators comply with a communications plan that would 

include better notification strategies to reach recreational and 

scientific divers.

As part of the process for site/permit-specific activities BOEM and 

BSEE’s Environmental Enforcement Division will conduct future 

coordination with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS). These coordination activities will include the discussion of

notification to divers and boaters in the region, beyond the Notice to 

Mariners, discussion of set-back from the Monitor and Gray’s Reef 

National and Marine Sanctuaries and environmental monitoring and 

enforcement efforts. BOEM and BSEE have begun this process through 

the November 2, 2012, letter to Mr. Daniel Basta the Director of the 

ONMS and a subsequent teleconference with ONMS staff on May 20, 

2013, and October 22, 2013. Text has been added to Chapter 4.2.11.1

and Appendix C, Section 3.1.4 to include this coordination.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.20 

Page 1-17, Line # or Figure # Section 1.6.15 National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act; Thank you for including the authorities of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) in Section 1.6 on 

Regulatory Framework. In the last paragraph, revise as 

follows: “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 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 and permit requirements are met and that 

agreed-upon measures will avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

potential adverse effects. Specifically, 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.”

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.6.15 to address this comment.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.21 

Page 2-9, Line # or Figure # Section 2.1.2.7 Guidance for 

Activities in or Near National Marine Sanctuaries; ONMS 

suggests the following changes to clarify between ONMS 

permitting and sanctuary consultation requirements. In the first 

and second paragraphs, revise as follows: “There are two 

Text has been revised in Chapter 2.1.2.4 to address this comment.
L-56 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

NMSs within the AOI: Monitor and Gray’s Reef (see Chapter 

4.2.11.1.1 for brief descriptions). The 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 15CFR part 

922. Operators should contact the relevant sanctuary 

superintendent for permit application and procedures. 

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 to be 

determined at the time the action is before 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 ensure that such activities do not endanger 

any other users of the sanctuaries.” 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.22 

Page 3-16, Line # or Figure # 3.3.2.1. High-Resolution 

Geophysical Surveys; This proposal stipulates a 30 m

minimum resolution for geophysical surveys pertaining to 

archaeological resources for wide area assessment. ONMS 

asserts that this is too low of resolution to determine the 

presence of archaeological material, particularly older 

shipwrecks which may have a lower profile on the seabed and 

especially this is too low for potential pre-historic sites. ONMS 

recommends that BOEM use higher resolution surveys to the 

greatest extent practical and to ensure that site-specific actions 

comply with the National Historic Preservation Act section 110 

and interagency compliance procedures at section 106. Second 

bullet under last paragraph: 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. The 

BOEM may require higher resolution surveys where necessary 

to ensure that site-specific actions comply with the NHPA.

Text has been added to Chapter 3.2.2.1 to address this comment.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-57

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.23 

Page 4-107, Line # or Figure # Section 4.2.5.1.1 Fish 

Resources/Demersal Resources/Demersal Hardbottom Fishes; 

Update the estimate of fish species in Gray’s Reef NMS and 

refer to the proper citation. In the fourth paragraph, second

sentence, revise as follows: “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).”

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.5.1.1 to address this comment.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.24 

Page 4-162, Line # or Figure # Section 4.2.9.2.2 

Evaluation/Vessel Exclusion Zones; BOEM acknowledges that 

GRNMS and other sites in the AOI are popular dive locations. 

Notification through “Local Notice to Mariners” is not an 

adequate notification strategy as it is not recognized as a source 

of information for recreational boaters and/or divers. A welladvertised central location – on line, list serves, message 

boards, etc – could be established to provide divers with up-todate information on G&G activities, in particular those 

involving air-gun surveys that might impact divers. BOEM 

should consider conditioning their permits to require a 

communications plan that would include better notification 

strategies to reach recreational and scientific divers. Gray’s 

Reef and Monitor NMS staff could assist in conducting the 

outreach, if appropriate. In first paragraph, last sentence revise 

as follows: “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, BOEM would require that the operators 

would also use other communication strategies to notify other 

affected public, such as recreational divers.”

As part of the process for site/permit-specific activities BOEM and 

BSEE’s Environmental Enforcement Division will conduct future 

coordination with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS). These coordination activities will include the discussion of

notification to divers and boaters in the region, beyond the Notice to 

Mariners, discussion of set-back from the Monitor and Gray’s Reef 

National and Marine Sanctuaries and environmental monitoring and 

enforcement efforts. BOEM and BSEE have begun this process through 

the November 2, 2012, letter to Mr. Daniel Basta, Director of the Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries, and a subsequent teleconference with 

ONMS staff on May 20, 2013, and October 22, 2013. Text has been 

revised in Chapters 4.2.9.2.2, 4.2.11.2.2, and 2.1.2.4 to address this 

consultation. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.25 

Page 4-172; 4-173, Line # or Figure # Section 4.2.11.1.1 

Description of the Affected Environment – National Marine 

Sanctuaries; Under subsection Monitor National Marine 

Sanctuary, revise as follows: “Federal regulations (15 CFR 

922, subpart F) prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS, 

including (but not limited to) anchoring, diving (except as 

authorized), cable laying, coring, dredging...” Under 

subsection Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, revise as 

follows: “Federal regulations (15 CFR 922, subpart I) prohibit 

certain activities in Gray’s Reef NMS, including (but not 

limited to) anchoring; dredging,...” 

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.11.1.1 to address this comment.
L-58 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.26 

Page 4-177, Line # or Figure # 4.2.11.2.2. Evaluation - Active 

Acoustic Sound Sources – National Marine Sanctuaries; 

ONMS and BOEM will initiate discussions about specific 

stipulations that would identify when sanctuary consultation 

would be required. It should be clarified here that the NMSA 

and the ONMS regulations have a broad definition of the terms 

“sanctuary resource” and “injury”. Of importance is that 

“injury” includes behavioral disturbance discussed within the 

section on National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.11.2.2 to address this comment.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.27 

Page 4-178, Line # or Figure # Evaluation - Active Acoustic 

Sound Sources – National Marine Sanctuaries - Recreational 

Resources; In other environmental analyses conducted by the 

US Navy, it has been acknowledged that divers may be affected 

by sound levels above 145 dB. It is not clear that an exclusion 

zone would adequately protect sanctuary users from adverse 

effects of noise. ONMS does not agree that impacts are 

negligible and minor given the lack of mitigation measures. 

Ensonification levels should be no greater than 145dB during 

time periods and within areas when and where diving is taking 

place. ONMS asserts that notification through “Local Notice to 

Mariners” is not an adequate strategy to inform the affected 

public of G&G activities as it is not widely distributed or 

recognized as a source of information for recreational boaters 

and/or divers. A well-advertised central source such as a 

website could be established to provide divers with up-to-date 

information on G&G activities, in particular those involving 

air-gun surveys that might impact divers. BOEM should 

consider conditioning their permits with specific stipulations 

that require that the operators comply with a communications 

plan that would include better notification strategies to reach 

recreational and scientific divers.

As part of the process for site/permit-specific activities BOEM and 

BSEE’s Environmental Enforcement Division will conduct future 

coordination with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS). These coordination activities will include the discussion of

notification to divers and boaters in the region, beyond the Notice to 

Mariners, discussion of set-back from the Monitor and Gray’s Reef 

National and Marine Sanctuaries and environmental monitoring and 

enforcement efforts. BOEM and BSEE have begun this process through 

the November 2, 2012, letter to Mr. Daniel Basta, Director of the Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries, and a subsequent teleconference with 

ONMS staff on May 20, 2013, and October 22, 2013. Text has revised 

in Chapter 4.2.11.2.2 to address this comment.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.28 

Page 4-180, Line # or Figure # 4.2.11.2.2. Evaluation –

Seafloor Disturbance – National Marine Sanctuaries; As 

previously noted, site-specific bottom disturbing activities in 

sanctuaries requires an ONMS permit. Revise first paragraph 

under National Marine Sanctuaries as follows: Insert new 

second sentence: “In addition, federal regulations (15 CFR 

922, subpart F) prohibit certain activities in the Monitor NMS, 

including drilling or coring the seabed.” Revise the following 

sentence: “Bottom-disturbing activities proposed within the 

boundaries of an NMS would not be permitted by BOEM, 

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.11.2.2 to address this comment.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-59

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

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 Superintendent Manager) 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.” 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.29 

Page 5-5, Line # or Figure # Section 5.4 Distribution of DPEIS 

for Review and Comment; Edit to indicate that the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (Monitor and Gray’s Reef NMSs) 

is in NOAA line office National Ocean Service instead of the 

line office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Federal 

Agencies Department of Commerce National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Silver Spring, Maryland National 

Marine Fisheries Service Silver Spring, Maryland St. 

Petersburg, Florida Miami, Florida National Ocean Service 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Silver Spring, Maryland 

Monitor NMS – Newport News, VA Gray’s Reef NMS -

Savannah, GA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Text has been revised in Chapter 5.4 to address this comment.

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.30 

Figures-13, Line # or Figure # Figure 4.4; Figure 4.4 shows 

“Charleston Bump complex” and the box shown encompasses 

oceanographic features of the Bump complex (and some 

additional area), but the boxed area does not include the actual 

bottom features known as the Charleston Bump, which are off 

SC and GA. For maps of the actual bottom feature, contact: 

NOAA’s Ocean Exploration & Research http://

explore.noaa.gov/”. The map is still unpublished and 

unavailable elsewhere.

Figure 4-4 shows Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, not seafloor 

features. The Charleston Bump feature is already shown on Figure 4-2. 

Ben Laws, NOAA FA-L-1 0.31 

Appendix; Consider including the frequently referred to 

“BOEM Guidelines for Providing Geological and Geophysical 

Hazards and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30CFR 

285, BOEM 2011” in the appendices. It seems that this 

document may be relevant to the substantive provisions in this 

DPEIS.

In order to avoid making the Programmatic EIS encyclopedic in nature, 

BOEM prefers to reference such documents and the document is readily 

available on the internet.
L-60 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Susan Bromm, 

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

FA-L-2 0.01 

EPA believes that the draft PEIS provides an adequate 

discussion of the potential environmental impacts and we have 

not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring 

substantive changes. Since a preferred alternative was not 

identified in the draft PEIS, we are rating both alternatives as 

LO - "Lack of Objections."

Comment noted.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.01 

In general, we concur that many G&G do not constitute a 

discharge of dredged or fill material and therefore do not 

require a Corps Section 404 permit. However, the draft PEIS 

makes a significant omission regarding permits that may be 

required by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). 

While the Clean Water Act (CWA) is defined with a somewhat 

limited glossary statement, the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) 

is omitted in the glossary.

The EIS has been revised in Chapters 1.6.10 and 1.6.14 to ensure that 

CWA and RHA requirements are fully and accurately described.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.02 

In the regulatory citation section the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 was omitted even though 

the regulatory aspects of that legislation were included in the 

text on pages 3‐41 and 4‐190.

Chapter 1.6.16 of the EIS has been revised to ensure that MPRSA 

requirements are cited where appropriate.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.03 

Importantly, while referencing the specific ocean dredged 

material disposal areas on page 4‐190 the PEIS failed to 

mention that G&G exploration activities at those sites would 

not likely be approved by the Corps.

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.12.1.5 to note this.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.04 

There are numerous comments regarding pipelines. If such 

pipelines are a part of G&G activities and those pipelines are 

on the bottom of the OCS or navigable state waters, those 

pipelines would constitute work in or affecting navigable 

waters and therefore require a Section 10 permit.

Pipelines are not part of G&G activities. Each individual survey 

applicant will be required to apply for the required permits for the 

specific survey activities.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.05 

The draft PEIS specifically notes that anchoring (monitoring 

buoys and cables), pipeline installation, and structure 

placement (emplacement of wind turbines, buoys, other items) 

on the seafloor could be expected from G&G actions. There is 

also a discussion of, “...or placement of bottom‐founded 

equipment or structure”. Such activities, that is installations 

and other devices on the OCS seabed will require Section 10 

permits.

Chapter 1.6.14 of the EIS has been revised to reflect this information.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.06 

We recommend that the CWA glossary statement include, “and 

Corps permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material.” 

The Clean Water Act entry in the Glossary has been revised to include 

this wording.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-61

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.07 

We recommend that the glossary include the Rivers and 

Harbors Act (RHA), and this statement: An act that requires 

Corps permits for work or structures, including structures 

(installations and other devices) on the OCS seabed, in or 

affecting navigable waters. The Corps evaluates permits for 

OCS structures with respect to national security and 

navigational interests.

The RHA has been added to the Glossary with wording as suggested.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.08 

Page viii: Add note that Corps permits are also required for 

structures on the OCS. Also state that Nationwide Permits 

(NWP) can only be used for activities with minimal adverse 

environmental impacts, meet the terms and conditions of the 

NWP, and comply with any Corps District specific regional 

conditions.

Text has been reworded as suggested.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.09 

Page 1‐6: Add “including OCS seabed structures” for COE 

jurisdiction. 

Text has been reworded as suggested.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.10 

Page 1‐15: Add “and OCS seabed structures” for COE 

approval 

Text has been reworded as suggested.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.11 

On page 1‐15 the draft PEIS discusses the NWP program, also 

called general permit. NWPs were reissued in 2012, as 

published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2012. Corps 

districts added regional conditions as may have been needed to 

insure that the activity authorized has only minimal adverse 

environmental impacts. States also reviewed the NWPs and as 

appropriate provided Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and 

Section 401 CWA water quality certifications. Any applicant 

that intends to use a NWP should insure that their proposed 

activity meets the terms, conditions, and any regional 

conditions of the NWP, and any additional CZM or Section 

401 water quality requirements. Projects that cannot use a 

general permit will require a standard permit.

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.6.10 to incorporate this information.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.12 

On page 1‐17 the draft PEIS appears to confuse Section 10 

permit authority with Section 404 actions. There is a 

discussion regarding the discharge of excavated material that is 

more related to Section 404 than Section 10. The draft PEIS 

should simply note that NWP‐5 for “Scientific Measurement 

Devices” and NWP‐6 for "Survey Activities" are both 

appropriate for Section 10 and Section 404 actions. It would be 

good to add that Section 10 is applicable for structures, 

installations, and other devices on the OCS seabed. There is a 

Text has been revised in Chapters 1.6.10 and 1.6.14 to address this 

comment and ensure that the Clean Water Act and Nationwide Permit 

requirements are accurately described.
L-62 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

statement regarding “avoid, minimize, or mitigate”. In general 

those terms are only associated with CWA Section 404 

discharges, and specifically the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. With 

regard to Section 10 permits, the Corps 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 Corps permit 

application and Corps decision that the proposed activity is not 

contrary to the public interest.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.13 

On page 2‐38 there is a statement that G&G surveys are 

permitted by NWP. That statement should be qualified that the 

activity is authorized only if it meets the terms, conditions, and 

any regional conditions of the NWP, and any additional CZM 

or Section 401 water quality requirements.

Text has been revised in Chapter 2.3.1 to address this comment.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.14 

On page 3‐13 there is a statement that surveys are permitted by 

NWP. That statement should be qualified that the activity is 

authorized only if it meets the terms, conditions, and any 

regional conditions of the NWP, and any additional CZM or 

Section 401 water quality requirements.

Text has been revised in Chapter 3.2.3.1 to address this comment.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.15 

On page 3‐22 there is a statement that the use of sand and 

gravel is permitted by NWP. That statement should be 

qualified that the activity is authorized only if it meets the 

terms, conditions, and any regional

Text has been revised in Chapter 3.4.1 to address this comment.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.16 

On page 3‐41 (3.6.9) our ocean dredged material disposal areas 

are used only for dredged material disposal, not “mainly.” 

Text has been revised to address this comment.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.17 

On the top of page 3‐42 in reference to sea turtles there are no 

documented cases of sea turtles being impacted by disposal 

operations and there are no effluent discharge criteria at ocean 

sites.

Text has been revised in Chapter 3.6.9 to address this comment.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.18 

On page 4‐70 restrictions on hopper dredges related to sea 

turtles occurs at the hopper dredge where the dredge head 

meets the sand surface not at or on the beach. Typically dredge 

material placement operations which occur on the beach are 

restricted from times of sea turtle nesting.

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.3.1.2 to address this comment.

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.19 

On page 4‐74 there is reference to the threat to Kemp's ridley 

sea turtle threats from dredging in the same vein as commercial 

fishing. As a matter of reference NOAA Fisheries authorizes 

the legal take of over 10,000 seat turtles annually while the 

Corps is authorized the legal take of fewer than fifty and of 

those only a few are Kemp’s.

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-63

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Joseph Wilson, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

FA-E-1 0.20 

On page 4‐138 while referring to the threat of dredging to 

Atlantic Sturgeon we would point out that the primary dredging 

threat is inland of the coastline and not in ocean waters.

Moreover, since coastal channels are frequently dredged they 

are no longer considered important habitat for Atlantic 

Sturgeon.

Comment noted.

Tamara Johnson, 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

FA-E-2 0.01 

The Service recommends that BOEM: Utilizes the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that they and the FWS 

entered into on June 4, 2009. The MOU addresses the effects 

of agency actions on migratory birds, and outlines appropriate 

MBTA standards and permit requirements to address in NEPA 

mandated environmental reviews. We expect this MOU will 

prompt any site-specific coordination necessary if you 

anticipate adverse impacts on migratory birds as a result of the 

proposed activities.

Text regarding this recommendation was included in Chapter 1.6.12.

Tamara Johnson, 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

FA-E-2 0.02 

Create an inventory of all migratory birds within the area of 

interest. This would serve as an important resource for 

assessing impacts if the need arises. The inventory could 

include migratory birds found on coastal beaches and marshes 

that could be affected by oil and gas mapping, exploration, and 

development.

A bird inventory is available for the migratory birds within the area of 

interest and Chapter 4.2.4 has been updated to reflect this database 

which is a dynamic database and includes maps. This compendium will 

be used in future analysis (O’Connell et al., 2011).

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.4.1.3 to reflect this inventory. 

Tamara Johnson, 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

FA-E-2 0.03 

Coordinate with the National Wildlife Refuges within the area 

of interest as survey activities are further refined. Knowledge 

of the G&G survey activities within Refuge boundaries should

help with coordination between the Service and BOEM. 

Depending on the activity, special use permits or other 

authorizations may be needed when a Refuge may be affected.

Each survey applicant will be required to coordinate with FWS regarding 

NWRs as well as all other requisite Federal and State agencies. See text 

in Chapter 1.7.5. 

Tamara Johnson, 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

FA-E-2 0.04 

Coordinates with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) regarding offshore impacts related to marine species.

NOAA is a cooperating agency for the development of this 

Programmatic EIS. In addition, BOEM has initiated Section 7 

consultation with NOAA for the programmatic document and each 

individual survey applicant will be required to obtain an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization for each specific survey as applicable.

State Agency Representatives (sorted by Agency)

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.01 

The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control (the Department) previously sent comments on the 

Notice of Intent to prepare a PEIS in a letter dated March 19, 

2009 and on the Reopening of the Comment Period for the 

PEIS in a letter dated May 17, 2010. Those comments remain 

relevant and should be considered throughout the PEIS process.

The referenced letters have been considered in the development and 

revision of the Programmatic EIS. 
L-64 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.02 

The Department is committed to development of clean 

domestic sources of energy and the development of sand and 

mineral resource areas and is concerned with the potential 

adverse environmental and economic effects of G&G activities 

supporting oil and gas exploration (particularly the deep 

penetration seismic airgun surveys). For these reasons, the 

Department is supportive of Alternative C analyzed in the 

PEIS; the no action alternative for oil and gas activities in the 

Mid-Atlantic Region and the status quo for renewable energy 

and marine mineral G&G activity.

Comment noted.

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.03 

...as stated in previous letters, we see no documented scientific 

justification why the unknown and unlikely benefits of oil and 

gas exploration in the Mid-Atlantic warrant further risks to the 

environment and public health. Further ocean related tourism 

remains one of Delaware’s largest initiatives and the 

consequences of a drilling accident as experienced recently in 

the Gulf of Mexico would be catastrophic for our state 

economy. For this reason the Department continues to have 

significant concerns about oil and gas leasing in the MidAtlantic OCS Planning Region.

BOEM was directed by Congress to conduct a Programmatic EIS to 

evaluate potential impacts from G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS. 

The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not evaluate oil and gas 

leasing nor does it authorize an OCS lease sale. Further NEPA 

evaluation would be required if and when a lease sale program is 

established for the Atlantic OCS. 

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.04 

In addition to long term concerns about our coastal resources, 

the Department is concerned about the impact of large-scale 

seismic surveys on the safety of migratory cetaceous mammals, 

sea turtles, and other listed and important species and habitats 

offshore of Delaware’s coast. Small-scale and site specific 

(shallow test drilling and deep stratigraphic test wells) activities 

would also focus the potential negative impacts upon smaller 

regions; through focused seismic noise, electromagnetic 

emissions, operational wastes, and seabed disturbance due to 

seabed-impacting equipment (e.g. anchors, cable lines, sensors, 

and drilling).

The impact analysis in Chapter 4.0 of the Programmatic EIS addresses 

potential impacts on migratory species including marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and fishes. Site-specific impacts would be evaluated through the 

NEPA process for individual applications. Operators will be required to 

abide by any mitigation requirements stated in this Programmatic EIS, in 

addition to those included in an issued MMPA Incidental Take 

Authorization or ESA Incidental Take Statement. 

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.05 

i. Biological Assessment / Biological Opinion The draft PEIS 

is not complete without the Biological Assessment that is to be 

included as Appendix A. The public should be afforded the 

opportunity to review and comment on this important part of 

the draft PEIS before the final PEIS and Record of Decision. 

The Biological Opinion should also be a part of the Final PEIS.

The Biological Assessment was provided on the BOEM website during 

the comment period. Both the Biological Assessment and Biological 

Opinion are included in the Final Programmatic EIS.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-65

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.06 

ii. ‘Take’, Cumulative Impacts, & Potential Biological 

Removal Individual estimates of Level A (and Level B) 

‘takes’ of some marine mammals are given separately for 

seismic airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys. For 

some species, 100s to nearly 1,500 individuals per year were 

listed as potential ‘take’ by these activities. Cumulative 

impacts of estimated ‘take’ levels should be compiled and 

presented for all of the proposed activities (seismic airgun 

surveys, non-airgun surveys, vessel strikes, COST and test well 

drilling etc.). In addition, because there are other sources of 

‘take’ not associated with the proposed activities (fisheries 

interactions, vessel strikes, pollution, etc.) additive ‘take’ 

caused by the proposed activities should be evaluated. Further, 

there is no assessment of how the proposed activities could 

impact the potential biological removal (PBR) for each species. 

It should be noted that population estimates are not known for 

many of these species and the impact of ‘take’ from the 

proposed activities on the sustainability of those species may 

not be predictable or credibly determined.

Chapter 4.2.2 has been revised to address the cumulative impacts of 

incidental takes on marine mammal species, including a consideration of 

PBR. Incidental take estimates were developed for airguns and other 

active acoustic sources. BOEM expects that incidental takes from vessel 

strikes would be avoided through the mitigation included in the proposed 

action, and no incidental takes are expected from other sources such as 

Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) well drilling. The 

cumulative impact analysis has been expanded to consider incidental 

takes from other reasonably foreseeable activities.

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.07 

iii. Data Gaps It is acknowledged in the draft PEIS 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 

range for mysticetes; and (5) the basic biology of specific 

species and their physiology for underwater hearing’ (pp. 4-

43). Yet very specific conclusions are drawn regarding the 

potential level of impact to an ‘adequate degree of certainty’.

Inferences are drawn for those species for which there is little 

information based on known information for unrelated species. 

The PEIS should be clear about what is considered an adequate 

degree of certainty and if it is the same for all species or just 

those for which a certain level of information is available.

As explained in Chapter 4.2.2.1, BOEM acknowledges that there is 

incomplete or unavailable information for all marine mammals with 

respect to seasonal abundances, stock or population size, population 

trends, hearing range, and biology and hearing physiology; however, the 

information identified as incomplete or unavailable is not essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives. Under NEPA it is the task of 

the implementing agency to make this determination, subject to the 

additional consultations that are required by law. Chapter 4.2.2 reports 

what we know about the marine mammals that use the AOI and further 

supporting information is provided in Appendix H. Appendix H, 

Section 6 summarizes the overall state of knowledge with respect to 

marine mammal species and groups within the AOI. The subject-matter 

experts for each resource used what scientifically credible information 

was publicly available at the time this EIS was prepared, and acquired, 

when possible, new information between the Draft Programmatic EIS 

and Final Programmatic EIS. Where necessary, the subject-matter 

experts extrapolated from existing or new information, using accepted 

methodologies, to make reasoned estimates and developed conclusions 

regarding the current understanding of resources within the AOI and 

expected impacts from G&G proposed activities. BOEM’s assessment 

of impacts is not based on conjecture, media reports, or public 

perception, rather it is based on theoretical approaches, research 
L-66 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

methods, and modeling applications generally accepted in the scientific 

community and that are even in the vanguard for assessing these types of 

impacts. The Draft and Final Programmatic EIS have thoroughly 

examined the existing credible scientific evidence that is relevant to 

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts of 

G&G proposed activities on the physical, biological, and human 

environments. The subject-matter experts that prepared this EIS 

conducted a diligent search for pertinent information, and BOEM’s 

evaluation of such impacts is based upon current theoretical approaches 

or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. All 

reasonably foreseeable impacts were considered, including impacts that 

could have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of 

occurrence is low. 

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.08 

iv. Sea Turtles There are no ‘take’ estimates for sea turtles 

such as presented for marine mammals. All the sea turtle 

species that occur within the Area of Interest are listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and take is defined in the ESA. The PEIS also states 

that sea turtle hatchlings will be insulated from the most 

harmful components of the propagated sound field because of 

their location at or near the sea surface. The PEIS should 

explain how they are not impacted by the source signal which, 

although directed downward, also travels upward hitting the 

surface (which acts as a mirror reflecting another signal 

downward with opposite polarity-called a source ghost?)2. 2

http://www.geoexpro.com/article/Marine_Seismic_Sources_P

art_I/5db4dd34.aspx. From Geo Expro-Marine Seismic 

Sources Part 1. Accessed May 16, 2012. 

There are no estimates for taking by acoustic harassment because there 

are no take thresholds for turtles upon which to base such estimates. 

Potential effects of anthropogenic sound on sea turtles are discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.3.2.2. In order of decreasing severity, these could include 

death, physical injury, hearing threshold shift, auditory masking, and 

behavioral responses.

In addition, density estimates for sea turtle species offshore of the 

eastern U.S. are not sufficient to generate take estimates as presented for 

marine mammals. The appropriate acoustic terminology for source 

ghost is Lloyd’s mirror effect, where a source or receiver close to the 

surface receives surface reflections of the sound that make it appear as if 

another source exists above the surface (what the comment is terming 

“source ghosting”). Since G&G signals are downward directed, they 

will first travel down to the seafloor and be reflected and/or refracted 

from the seafloor before they will return to the sea surface to potentially

be reflected, creating a Lloyd’s mirror effect. During that propagation, 

the sound will lose energy and be scattered, so it will not act as a point 

source that can reflect off the sea surface for “source ghosting.” In 

addition, Lloyd’s mirror is strongest with low-frequency tones (narrowband signals) and calm sea conditions (when the surface is glass-like and 

can act as a good reflector). Since G&G signals are broadband and sea 

conditions are often not calm, there is very little likelihood that Lloyd’s 

mirror effect could be a factor within the AOI. 

In addition, the FWS consultation letter included in Appendix A

indicated concurrence with the no effect on or would not likely adversely 

affect the federally listed species or critical habitats that was presented in 

the Biological Assessment. From consultation, NMFS determined that 

the anticipated level of harassment from G&G activities is not likely to 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-67

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered or threatened 

species for which “take” (by harassment) would be exempted by the

Incidental Take Statement included in Appendix A.

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.09 

v. Seals The Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) is not included 

with the list of pinniped species (harbor, gray, hooded). 

However, more frequent sightings of harp seals have been 

noted in Delaware than both hooded seals and gray seals 

(MERR Institute3). The presence of pinnipeds in Delaware 

should not be described as extralimital. The annual seasonal 

occurrence (typically November to May) of pinnipeds in 

Delaware is well documented and the preparers of this 

document should consult local sources for data including 

representatives from the NOAA-Northeast Stranding Network 

which track seal strandings and live sightings from Maine to 

Virginia. 3 Marine Education, Research and Rehabilitation 

Institute, Inc. (MERR). P.O. Box 411, Nassau, DE 19962 

Text has been added in Chapter 4.2.2.1.2 to address this comment. 

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.10 

vi. Sturgeon The PEIS should be updated to reflect the current 

status of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) 

which was listed as an endangered species within the area of 

interest on April 6, 2012 by NOAA-National Marine Fisheries 

Service as per the Endangered Species Act.

Text in Chapters 4.2.6, 4.3.6, and 4.4.6 has been revised to address this 

comment.

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.11 

vii. Invertebrates The PEIS states that there are no known 

systematic studies of the effects of sonar sound on 

invertebrates. The following study provides evidence of the 

trauma caused to cephalopods from low frequency sound 

produced by large scale offshore activities such as the ones 

being proposed: Michel André, Marta Solé, Marc Lenoir, 

Mercè Durfort, Carme Quero, Alex Mas, Antoni Lombarte, 

Mike van der Schaar, Manel López-Bejar, Maria Morell, Serge 

Zaugg, Ludwig Houégnigan. Low-frequency sounds induce 

acoustic trauma in cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 2011; : 110408135918022 DOI: 10.1890/100124

Chapter 4.2.1.2 and Appendix J have been revised to include impacts 

to invertebrates.

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.12 

viii. Mitigation & Monitoring All G&G activities, including 

those for alternative energy and marine minerals, are expected 

to be required to use the appropriate mitigations to reduce 

environmental impacts. The Department supports a program 

that would monitor and track all G&G activities on the Atlantic 

OCS. This would enable Delaware and other coastal states to 

better manage and monitor OCS activities that could possibly 

negatively impact the State’s coastal resources. Additionally, a 

comprehensive tracking system of proposed and ongoing G&G 

Although a comprehensive tracking system may be a useful tool, it is 

beyond the scope of the Programmatic EIS and BOEM’s mission to 

develop one. Information about G&G permits issued by BOEM would 

be publicly available. Through the Adaptive Management process, 

mitigation requirements could be revised or new protocols developed if 

new information indicates that they are infeasible or could be made more 

effective. A discussion regarding adaptive management has been added 

to Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7. 
L-68 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

activities would foster increased inter-state and federal 

coordination on OCS resource management and promote 

regional cooperation.

Brian Kelly, 

Delaware 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-6 0.13 

ix. State Coastal Zone Management Programs The Federal 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires 

that actions on the OCS that will have reasonably foreseeable 

effects on a State’s natural resources or coastal uses must be 

consistent with federally approved State Coastal Management 

Programs. As such, individual exploration activities on the 

OCS with foreseeable impacts to Delaware’s coastal resources 

or uses are subject to review to ensure compliance with 

Delaware’s coastal management policies. As applicable G&G 

projects are submitted for a federal consistency determination, 

the Delaware’s Coastal Management Program will review 

potential impacts. The details of the survey type, location, and 

equipment used will dictate the State’s position on each project. 

Appendix B of the PEIS should also be updated to reflect that 

the Delaware Coastal Management Program has an updated 

Program and Policy Document as of June 2011.

Text has been revised in Appendix B to address this comment.

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP 

SA-E-2 0.01 

Florida supports G&G activities on the South Atlantic OCS as 

they will play a significant role in supporting the siting of 

renewable energy projects and helping to locate offshore sand 

deposits important to beach and shoreline restoration. 

However, care must be taken to ensure that marine and coastal 

resources, especially protected species and ecosystems are 

provided maximum protection. Florida recommends that final 

requirements be the most protective but do not impose 

unnecessary regulation or restrictions that increase costs 

without providing significant benefits to environmental 

resources. We defer to NOAA Fisheries for final 

recommendations of protected resources under their 

jurisdiction. 

Comment noted.

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.02 

While not critical to the implementation of the requirements of 

the PEIS, the description of Florida Coastal Management 

Program (FCMP) in Appendix B should be corrected since the 

Department of Community Affairs no longer exists and has 

been replaced by the Department of Economic Opportunity. 

Please refer to http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/partners/state 

agencies.htm for corrections. In addition, the 2010, not the 

2005, Florida Statutes are the most recent approved by NOAA 

for inclusion in the FCMP.

Text has been revised in Appendix B to address this comment.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-69

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.03 

Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems – It is unclear if the 

time-area closures proposed for right whale and sea turtle 

protection will apply to G&G activities, which do not use 

airguns, related to sand searches for beach projects, or what 

factors would be considered in the case-by-case decision. 

[Section 2.1.2.1: “ However, HRG surveys proposed in critical 

habitat area and SMAs may be considered on a case by- case 

basis only if: (I) they are proposed for renewable energy or 

marine minerals operations; and (2) they use acoustic sources 

other than air guns.”]

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS the non airgun HRG 

protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. As a result of the clarification time-area closures would 

generally not be applied to surveys using non airgun HRG acoustic 

sources. Those clarifications have been finalized with NMFS through 

formal Section 7 consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion 

(Appendix A). The Programmatic EIS has been revised to ensure that it 

clearly and consistently indicates what G&G methods and equipment are 

subject to time-area closures and other mitigation requirements. Please 

refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated survey protocols.

No airgun surveys would be authorized within the closure area during 

that time. HRG non-airgun surveys with sources below 1.6 kHz would 

be restricted within this area from May 1 to October 31. HRG nonairgun surveys with sources above 1.6 kHz would not be subject to the 

sea turtle time-area closure. 

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP 

SA-E-2 0.04 

Imposition of the area-time closures for both sea turtles and 

right whales would leave only two, two week periods for 

surveying (April 16 – April 30 and November I – November 

14). Such a limitation would significantly affect the time frame 

for sand searches, especially if the remote sensing data would 

have to be reviewed prior to any seafloor-disturbing activities.

What type (s) of site-specific information is required? Would 

new remote-sensing or other data for an area be required, or 

would a review of existing data from previous studies and 

reports be sufficient? The restriction of having to do 

seismic/remote sensing first, getting it reviewed, and then 

approving vibracoring greatly increases the time and 

operational costs of sand searches, as multiple deployments 

would be required.

Neither Alternative A nor Alternative B limits marine minerals HRG 

surveys to the small time periods indicated. As stated in Chapters 

2.1.3.1.1 and 2.1.3.2.1 (for the NARW time-area closure) and Chapter 

2.2.2.2 (for the sea turtle time-area closure), no airgun surveys would be 

authorized within the closure area during that time and non-airgun HRG 

surveys with sources below 1.6 kHz would be restricted within this area 

from May 1 to October 31. Non-airgun HRG surveys with sources 

above 1.6 kHz would not be subject to the sea turtle time-area closure. 

The two week window would be limited to airgun surveys. BOEM does 

not expect that airguns would be used for marine minerals HRG surveys.

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.05 

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau of 

Beaches and Coastal Systems expressed concerns about the 

application of mitigation in state waters and potential 

inconsistencies with Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. Throughout 

this document G&G activities (that do not use airguns) in 

support of marine minerals have negligible to minor impacts on 

resources. Florida has reviewed numerous G&G activities for 

sand searches in state waters and have found them to be 

negligible in impacts to resources. Legislation passed this year 

now exempts them from permitting [CSIHB 691]. The BOEM 

proposal to apply the proposed mitigation measures in state 

waters would appear to contradict the intent of this legislation. 

BOEM does not authorize G&G activities in State waters. The scientific 

rationale for the proposed time-area closures and mitigation measures 

applicable to marine minerals HRG surveys is presented in Appendix C. 

BOEM will not place unnecessary restrictions on these projects.
L-70 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems is charged in 

Chapter 161, F. S. to plan and implement a program that cost 

effectively restores and maintains Florida’s coastal system and 

beaches. It would be inconsistent with this statute if 

unnecessary costs and restrictions were placed on sand 

searches.

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.06 

Florida Geological Survey – Deep stratigraphic test wells and 

borings to facilitate an understanding of the competence of 

sediments to support seabed structures present the potential to 

allow the activation of artesian flow from the Floridian aquifer 

system or other aquifers in the area. While the risk of such is 

presumed to be negligible, buried, infilled karstic collapse 

features, i.e. buried sinkholes, lying beneath the seafloor of the 

inner continental shelf off the east coast of Florida within the 

ADI are known to exist. The avoidance of such features during 

the placement of stratigraphic test wells, borings and 

foundations into the seabed is suggested.

Prior to deep test wells or borings being performed, geophysical surveys 

would be performed which would identify these types of features and 

they would be avoided. 

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.07 

The FGS has the ability to archive geologic samples (e.g., cores 

and cuttings) and geophysical data collected offshore of Florida 

and to make those samples and data available for future 

research. It is requested that the FGS be given access to any 

geological, geochemical and geophysical data, to include 

bottom samples, borings and stratigraphic test information as 

well as high resolution shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler, 

side scan sonar, swath bathymetry, and traditional bathymetric 

survey data that might be collected proximal to the coast of 

Florida. The FGS is interested in what these data sets might 

reveal regarding the geology of Florida.

Information that can be publicly released will be made available to the 

Florida Geological Survey (FGS). Depending on the survey, some data 

collected during G&G surveys may be considered proprietary and 

therefore not available for public distribution.

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.08 

Div. of Historical Resources – This agency has concerns about 

potential impacts to archaeological resources off of the east 

coast of Florida. Proposed project activities which may impact 

archaeological resources include seafloor disturbing activities 

among other, less detrimental activities. Nevertheless, Section 

2.1.2.6.1. Avoidance and Reporting Requirements for Historic 

and Prehistoric Sites addresses these concerns. Site specific 

information will be required prior to approval of seafloor 

disturbing activities or placement of equipment or structures on 

the seafloor. We concur that archaeological resource surveys 

be required and stipulations be in place for the protection of 

any significant archaeological resources. Procedures for the 

reporting of fortuitous finds must also be enforced.

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-71

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.09 

ERP – In accordance with the St Johns River Water 

Management District Operating Agreement, any work within 

waters of the state of Florida (from the shore to within 3 nmi) 

would require an environmental resource permit (ERP) as well 

as a state lands authorization from the Department for use of 

those sovereign bottoms where applicable. It appears as though 

the proposed exploration area covers two DEP regulatory 

districts (Northeast and Central) and both districts should be 

contacted.

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.6.18 to address this comment. 

Coordination with the appropriate District will be handled during project 

specific permitting.

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.10 

As Jacksonville is home to Naval Station Mayport, Naval Air 

Station Jacksonville, and JaxPort, any activities that would 

interrupt shipping channels or daily operations of any of these 

facilities would be of concern.

As discussed in Appendix C, Section 3.8, coordination with the 

appropriate military command headquarters will be required for all 

survey activities near military installations.

Debby Tucker, 

Environmental 

Administrator, 

FDEP

SA-E-2 0.11 

In addition to the above named facilities, the proposed 

exploration area is adjacent to and includes some 

environmentally sensitive areas such as Fort Clinch State Park 

Aquatic Preserve and the Nassau River-St Johns River Marshes 

Aquatic Preserve.

The two aquatic preserves cited are shown on Figure 4-35.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.01 

Under Georgia’s Coastal Management Program, the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources’ Coastal Resources Division 

(GADNR/CRD) is the lead agency responsible for federal 

consistency coordination with our networked sister agencies.

General information requests and dissemination will be handled 

by GADNR/CRD. Several other GADNR Divisions focus on 

discrete groups of marine resources and have technical 

specialists that would like to serve as Coordinating Agencies to 

assist in the development of the G&G PEIS.

Appendix B addresses the States’ roles in consistency review.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.02 

The GADNR Wildlife Resources Divisions' (GADNR/WRD) 

Nongame Section would like to serve as Georgia's 

Coordinating Agency for Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and 

Coastal and Marine Birds.

Text has been revised in Appendix B and in Chapter 1.6.18 to address 

this comment. 

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03a 

Prior to initiation of any seismic activity, significant additional 

mitigation measures will be required to meet the needs of these 

whales, and to bring G&G activity into compliance with federal 

laws that protect them (ESA, MMPA).

The Programmatic EIS includes extensive mitigation measures during 

seismic surveys as detailed in Appendix C. All survey authorizations 

will require operators to be in compliance with the ESA and MMPA. 

Information about ESA and MMPA required compliance is presented in 

Chapters 1.6.6 and 1.6.7 of the Programmatic EIS, respectively.

Further detail is in Appendix A, which contains the BA and the BO.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03b 

GADNR Considerations and Need for right whales to be 

included in Mineral Management Service’s DPEIS: 1. Shipbased visual detection mitigation techniques for right whales 

are inadequate due to the animal's ability to lie just under the 

Ship-based monitoring is discussed in Appendix C, Sections 3.2 and 

3.3. The pre ramp-up search period (of at least 60 minutes duration) 

prior to the onset of ramp-up is designed to assist visual observers locate 

marine mammals during their normal dive (or subsurface rest) 
L-72 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

surface and remain undetected. frequency. Though right whales may lie below the surface for periods of 

time, it is expected that trained PSOs would spot exhalation plumes and 

surface disturbances. For the Preferred Alternative PAM would be 

incorporated into 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 

operating at or below 200 kHz effective monitoring technologies, which 

could include PAM would be required. These measures improve 

detection of marine mammals and further reduce potential impacts to the 

NARW and other marine mammals. 

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03c 

2. Communication between adult female right whales and their 

calves is either non-auditory or at a frequency not detected with 

conventional acoustic equipment. As such, towed passive 

acoustic arrays as described by AIGC will not be adequate in 

and around the calving grounds to detect the most important 

population demographic, adult females. 

It is understood that PAM is not effective if whales are silent or 

vocalizing at frequency levels below the detectable frequency range of 

the PAM hydrophone array. However, it is expected that the majority of 

these animals would be detectable visually by PSOs. Additionally, 

NMFS will work with operators to determine which PAM systems are 

adequate for use. 

The preferred Alternative, Alternative B, contains time area closures that 

include calving grounds for the NARW. Additionally, site-specific 

NEPA analysis may require further mitigation measures.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03d 

3. Geologic and Geophysical activity, including seismic testing, 

may have dramatic and potentially lethal impacts on the 

behavior and health of the population of right whales. The 

effects of air-gun arrays used during geophysical seismic 

surveys on baleen whales are not well known.

Impacts of G&G activities on right whales are analyzed in Chapter 4.2.2

and the Biological Assessment. Taking into account the mitigation 

included in the proposed action, potentially lethal impacts are not 

expected based on the best available scientific information.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03e 

4· A thorough understanding of acoustic sensitivities of baleen 

whales does not exist and is needed.

Appendix H of the Programmatic EIS reviews the best available 

scientific information concerning the hearing and acoustic sensitivity of 

marine mammals. This information was incorporated into the impact 

analysis in Chapter 4.2.2. The Programmatic EIS has thoroughly 

examined the existing, credible scientific evidence relevant to evaluating 

the reasonably foreseeable, significant adverse impacts of the proposed 

activities. All reasonably foreseeable impacts have been considered, and 

the characterization of impact magnitude and duration is supported by 

credible scientific evidence.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03f 

5. Right whales do not move out of the way from approaching 

vessels, making them extremely vulnerable to ship strike, 

particularly from larger ships traveling faster than 10 knots. 

Mitigation measures to avoid vessel strikes are included in the proposed 

action as described in Appendix C, Section 3.1.1. Survey speeds are 

generally less than 5 kn (9.26 km/hr) and PSOs would be scanning the 

sea surface around the survey vessels. The risk of vessel strikes from 

survey vessels is low as noted in Chapter 4.2.2.2.2. BOEM’s proposed 

guidance for vessel strike avoidance is consistent with the speed 

recommendations noted in this comment. All authorizations for 

shipboard surveys, regardless of vessel size, would include guidance for 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-73

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

vessel strike avoidance while in transit. The guidance would be similar 

to NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 (“Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead 

Protected Species Reporting”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012b), 

which incorporates NMFS “Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and 

Reporting for Mariners” addressing protected species identification, 

vessel strike avoidance, and injured/dead protected species reporting. 

Vessel operators, crews, and visual observers or PSOs must maintain a 

vigilant watch for marine mammals and sea turtles and slow down or 

stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species.

Vessel speed shall also operate within the 10 kn (18.5 km/h) speed 

restriction in: DMAs, Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMAs November 1 through 

April 30, and critical habitat and Southeast U.S. SMAs from November 

15 through April 15 (in accordance with NMFS Compliance Guide for 

the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105). 

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 the proposed action, survey 

at a speed of approximately 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). In addition, waters 

surrounding survey vessels for airguns and non airgun HRG operating

below 200 kHz on survey would be monitored by PSOs or visual 

observers for the presence of all marine mammals and sea turtles. 

Outside of critical habitat, SMA, and DMAs, during transit to and from 

shore bases, seismic vessels and other survey vessels are expected to 

travel at greater speeds. However, as noted above, these vessel 

movements would be subject to BOEM guidance for vessel strike 

avoidance and be required to reduce speed in certain areas to comply 

with the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule and when mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an 

underway vessel. BOEM also conducted ESA Section 7 consultation 

with NMFS regarding the proposed action and will comply with 

reasonable and prudent measures to protect right whales and other 

endangered species as specified in the Biological Opinion (see 

Appendix A).

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03g 

6. The deployment of sensory arrays during seismic activity in 

the Atlantic may cause a physical threat to right whales through 

creating a potential entanglement source in the array, and by 

ship strike risk from associated vessel transects. 

There has never been a reported case of a marine mammal becoming 

entangled in seismic equipment so the risk is considered to be very low. 

Mitigation measures to avoid vessel strikes are included in the proposed 

action as described in Appendix C, Section 3.1.1. Survey speeds are 

generally less than 5 kn and PSOs would be scanning the sea surface 

around the survey vessels. Please see responses to SA-L-3:0.03b and 

SA-L-3:0.03f.
L-74 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03h 

7. Right whales are present in southeastern U.S. waters from 

shore to a minimum of 40 nm seaward of land from November 

15-April 15 every year. This area includes, but is more 

extensive than the designated Critical Habitat at described in 

the Right Whale Species Recovery plan. 

The time-area closures for seismic airguns under both Alternatives A and 

B are larger than the Critical Habitat area. The closure area under 

Alternative A includes the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs and 

DMAs for the NARW. The Southeast U.S. SMA, with seasonal 

restrictions in effect from November 1 to April 30, is a continuous area 

extending from St. Augustine, Florida, to Brunswick, Georgia, extending 

37 km (20 nmi) from shore. The Mid-Atlantic SMA, with seasonal 

restrictions 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. Under Alternative B, the 

time-area closure would be expanded to a continuous 37-km (20-nmi) 

wide zone extending from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI

and also includes DMAs. See Chapter 2.1.2.1 and 2.2.2.1 and 

Appendix C of the Programmatic EIS. Further, at this time BOEM 

believes that the mitigation measures in Alternative B provide adequate 

protection. This mitigation measure may be considered again during 

site-specific analyses.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.03i 

8. The North Atlantic right whale population is severely 

compromised from historic hunting pressure but remains 

suppressed. Entanglement in fishing gear and collision with 

ships remain significant threats. The continued existence of 

this species is strongly dependent on the continued integrity of 

the calving grounds, as well as regulation to protect them 

throughout their migratory year.

Existing threats to the NARW population are discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.2.1 and in the Biological Assessment. Cumulative impact 

analysis in Chapter 4.2.2.4 and the Biological Assessment took into 

account the existing threats. Please see response to SA-L-3:0.03f 

regarding vessel strike mitigation measures. 

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.04 

Preliminary GADNR Recommendation Regarding Right 

Whales: Temporally restrict any Geologic and Geophysical 

activities, including seismic studies and any ship related 

activities, to a period outside of the right whale winter season 

off of the southeastern US coast, from November 15 to 

April 15. The minimum standard mitigation measures 

described by IAGC are not adequate to protect right whales.

The proposed action includes extensive mitigation measures that are 

included in Appendix C that are well beyond those described by 

International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) as 

referenced in this comment. Airgun and HRG Survey Protocols have 

been clarified since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS and have 

been finalized with NMFS through formal Section 7 consultation and the 

issuance of a Biological Opinion (Appendix A). BOEM has also 

identified the review and approval process that would be utilized for 

site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5.

Chapter 5.7.3 has been revised to state that 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, 

seismic 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 Incidental Take Statement. BOEM has noted 

that operators will be required to satisfy the mitigation requirements 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-75

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

stated in this Programmatic EIS as well as those of other agencies having 

jurisdiction before a permit will be issued. 

All authorizations for shipboard surveys, regardless of vessel size, would 

include guidance for vessel strike avoidance while in transit. The 

guidance would be similar to NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 (“Vessel Strike 

Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”) (USDOI, 

BOEM and BSEE, 2012b), which incorporates NMFS “Vessel Strike 

Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners” addressing protected 

species identification, vessel strike avoidance, and injured/dead protected 

species reporting. Vessel operators, crews, and visual observers or PSOs 

must maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and sea turtles and 

slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species.

Vessel speed shall also operate within the 10-kn (18.5-km/h) speed 

restriction in DMAs, Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMAs November 1 through 

April 30, and critical habitat and Southeast U.S. SMAs from November 

15 through April 15 (in accordance with NMFS Compliance Guide for 

the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105). 

With these mitigation measures in place, survey vessels are unlikely or 

less likely to strike marine mammals. Seismic vessels, which account 

for most of the project related vessel traffic associated with the proposed 

action, survey at a speed of approximately 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). In 

addition, waters surrounding survey vessels for airguns and non airgun 

HRG operating below 200 kHz on survey would be monitored by PSOs 

or visual observers for the presence of all marine mammals and sea 

turtles. Outside of critical habitat, SMA, and DMAs, during transit to 

and from shore bases, seismic vessels and other survey vessels are 

expected to travel at greater speeds. However, as noted above, these 

vessel movements would be subject to BOEM guidance for vessel strike 

avoidance and be required to reduce speed in certain areas to comply 

with the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule and when mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an 

underway vessel.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.05 

GADNR Considerations and Need for sea turtles to be included 

in Mineral Management Service's DPEIS: 1) The Loggerhead 

turtle population on the Georgia coast is compromised by 

depressed numbers but believed to be stable at this time. 2) 

Disruption of nesting and foraging activity from seismic survey 

noise is a real possibility. 3) An increase boat collision 

mortality from support vessels associated with seismic surveys.

The issues raised in this comment are addressed in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2

including impacts of active acoustic sources and vessel traffic. It is 

acknowledged that airgun noise may cause behavioral responses. The 

risk of vessel strikes is expected to be minimized because of (1) the 

guidelines for vessel strike avoidance that would be part of all 

authorizations for shipboard surveys; (2) the typical slow speed of 

survey vessels; (3) the use of PSOs to scan the sea surface around survey 

vessels; and (4) shutdowns when sea turtles are sighted within exclusion 

zones.
L-76 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.06 

Seismic surveys during the nesting season could result in 

increased movement of nesting females and disrupt 

physiological processes necessary to produce eggs for 

reproduction.

This issue is addressed in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.07 

Any significant increase in vessel traffic from support 

operations could result in significant impacts to sea turtles, 

particularly during the nesting season when loggerhead females 

are concentrated along the coast.

Impacts resulting from vessel traffic are addressed in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2

and are expected to be negligible. 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, (2) the typical slow speed of survey vessels, and (3) 

the use of PSOs to scan the sea surface around survey vessels. G&G 

related vessel traffic would represent a very small fraction of the existing 

vessel traffic in the region. Survey vessels are likely to remain offshore 

for most of the survey duration. They may be supported by supply 

vessels, but it is not a requirement. Renewable energy surveys are 

generally conducted by small vessels moving at less than 5 kn with 

typical duration of 3 days or less. Marine minerals surveys aren't 

expected to occur off the coast of Georgia as 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.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.08 

Preliminary GADNR Recommendation for Sea Turtles: 

Surveys should be designed to eliminate noise in the near shore 

area (<10 nm from shore) from May through August to ensure 

nesting activity is not disrupted.

BOEM recognizes the difficulty in avoiding all protected species. This 

is particularly difficult when Mysticetes are in the project area in the fall, 

spring, and winter, and sea turtles are in the area in the summer. Most 

mitigation measures are aimed at protecting marine mammals, knowing 

that many sources are audible to many marine mammals and have the 

potential to change their behavior. BOEM-regulated surveys would be 

approximately 3 miles offshore, if not further offshore. No airgun

surveys would be authorized within the sea turtle closure area during that 

time. Non-airgun HRG surveys with sources below 16 kHz would be 

restricted within this area from May 1 to October 31. Non-airgun HRG 

surveys with sources above 1.6 kHz would not be subject to the sea turtle 

time-area closure. The preferred Alternative, Alternative B, contains 

additional details concerning time-area closures for sea turtles.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.09 

To summarize, the Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement should address several issues related to sea turtles 

including: 1) the potential disruption of loggerhead nesting 

activity by seismic surveys and 2) potential increase in sea 

turtle mortality from increased vessel traffic associated with 

seismic surveys.

These issues and other potential impacts on sea turtles are addressed in 

Chapter 4.2.3.2.2. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-77

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Chris Clark,

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.10 

The GADNR Coastal Resources Division (GADNR/CRD) 

Marine Fisheries Section would like to serve as a Georgia's 

Coordinating Agency for Commercial and Recreational 

Fisheries.

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.6.18 to address this comment.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.11 

IMPACTS: The predicted impact of G&G activities on fish 

and invertebrates appears minimal. However, some G&G 

activities (such as seismic surveys) can produce an avoidance 

behavior in fishes but studies show large discrepancies 

(distance) of the affected area. There are small impacts on eggs 

and larval fishes, but the levels are well below the natural 

mortality rate of 5-15% per day for most species (Gausland, 

2003). The impact of such surveys on adult fishes is greatest 

during spawning and migration to spawning areas, and 

diminishes with distance from the origin. Gausland (2003) 

suggests a safe zone of a few kilometers, although no study 

documented lasting effect on fishing or fish stocks as a result of 

seismic surveys.

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.5.2.2 to address this comment. 

Please review Appendix J regarding impacts to fish.

Chris Clark, 

Georgia DNR SA-L-3 0.12 

In summary, the State of Georgia supports Outer Continental 

Shelf oil and gas exploration provided that negative impacts to 

living marine resources and their habitats are fully addressed 

and minimized or eliminated.

Comment noted.

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.01 

Affected Resources and Impact Analysis: Commercial and 

Recreational Fisheries The DPEIS finds that a ‘negligible 

percentage’ of seafloor within the Area of Interest (AOI) would 

be disturbed by G&G activities and concludes that seafloor 

disturbance, would have only a negligible impact on 

commercial fisheries and no impact at all on recreational 

fisheries. The DPEIS further states that because BOEM would 

require prior approval of G&G activities involving 

seafloor-disturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded 

equipment or structures, most impacts on commercial and 

recreational activities are expected to be avoided and thus 

negligible. Marine species are not evenly distributed and if the 

small area of disturbance occurs in prime fishing grounds or 

spawning areas, impacts could be more than negligible. The 

significance criteria for seafloor disturbances on commercial 

and recreational fisheries should be increased to Negligible to 

Minor for commercial fisheries and Negligible for recreational 

fisheries.

Chapters 4.2.7.2.2, 4.3.7.1, and 4.4.7.1 were modified to address this 

comment and the impact rating was revised as indicated for commercial 

fisheries. Seafloor disturbance is not an impact-producing factor for 

recreational fisheries based on the rationale provided in the 

Programmatic EIS.

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR SA-E-4 0.02 The DPEIS finds that active acoustic sound sources, specifically seismic airguns, are likely to produce Minor 

Based on the Significance Criteria definitions for commercial and 

recreational fisheries (Chapters 4.2.7.2.1 and 4.2.8.2.1, respectively) the 
L-78 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Coastal Resources 

Division

impacts to commercial species and Negligible impacts to 

recreational species. Behavior and mortality in fishes as a 

result of seismic surveys are not well understood and difficult 

to quantify. Because all fish species show behavioral 

avoidance for some period of time, the significance criteria for 

seismic sound sources on both commercial and recreational 

fisheries should be increased to Minor to Moderate.

behavioral avoidance would be considered a minor impact as defined.

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.03 

The DPEIS finds that accidental fuel spills are likely to produce 

Negligible impacts to commercial and recreational fisheries 

since accidental spills are likely to be small in size. Any oil 

spill, no matter how small the impact area, may tarnish 

commercial fisheries enough that the public may hesitate from 

buying the product for fear of contamination and not knowing 

where it was caught. Similarly, recreational fisheries would 

also be expected to decline. The significance criteria for 

commercial and recreational fisheries should be increased to 

Minor.

BOEM reconsidered the impact rating based on this comment and 

revised the text accordingly (see Chapters 4.2.7.3, 4.3.7.2, 4.4.7.2, 

4.2.8.3, 4.3.8.2, and 4.4.8.2).

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.04 

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures: Commercial and 

Recreational Fisheries The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (SAFMC) has designated several Habitat 

Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) within the Area of 

Interest (AOI) to protect deepwater coral communities from 

physical damage by fishing gear. The DPEIS states that 

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, live/hard 

bottom, chemosynthetic, and deepwater canyons communities 

are expected to be avoided. A more effective and reassuring 

solution to case-by-case review of proposed individual actions 

would be for BOEM to include a prohibition of G&G activities 

within HAPCs in their Preferred Alternative.

A prohibition on G&G activities within HAPCs is not warranted and 

would remove a substantial portion of the Area of Interest (AOI) from 

being surveyed. HAPCs are not “no activity” zones; they are areas 

within Essential Fish Habitat where fisheries management identifies a 

need to conserve sensitive habitats from anthropogenic activities such as 

fishing practices. As shown in Figure 4-4, substantial portions of the 

Area of Interest are identified as HAPCs. Some of them were 

established to protect pelagic fishery resources and control certain, 

specific fishing activities such as pelagic long lining. BOEM believes it 

is reasonable to focus on preventing seafloor-disturbing activities from 

affecting all sensitive benthic resources, whether located in an HAPC or 

not. Therefore, as indicated in Chapter 2.1.2.3.2, BOEM will require 

operators to provide 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. BOEM has used 

this approach extensively and successfully in the Gulf of Mexico.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-79

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.05 

Impact-producing factors (IPCs), most notably seafloor 

disturbance and seismic sound activities, are of most 

significance on commercial and recreational fisheries when 

conducted within 20 nautical miles (nm) of the shoreline. The 

significance criteria of these IPFs would be greatly reduced if 

BOEM would include a prohibition of seismic activities and 

seafloor disturbances within 20 nm of the Georgia shoreline in 

their Preferred Alternative.

Alternative B, which is BOEM’s Preferred Alternative, includes a 

continuous band of time-area closure along the Georgia coast to a 

distance of 20 nmi from shore. Although this protective measure is 

seasonal and corresponds to NARW transiting the area, within this area 

and within the identified time window, seismic airguns would not be 

allowed to operate. The areal extent and degree of bottom-disturbing 

activity in the scenario for the three program areas is very small. The 

impact significance levels for both Alternatives A and B for commercial 

and recreational fisheries have been assessed as minor or negligibleminor for acoustic sound sources, vessel traffic, and bottom disturbance. 

The prohibition of all permitting activity within 20 nmi is not consistent 

with the purpose and need for this NEPA evaluation.

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.06 

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures: Marine Mammals The 

mitigation measures outlined in Alternative A are not as 

protective of coastal resources as could reasonably be expected 

given the magnitude of reasonably foreseeable impacts. 

Alternative B, which includes expanding the time-area closure 

for North Atlantic right whales and nesting sea turtles, 

separation between simultaneous seismic airgun arrays, and 

passive acoustic monitoring, is likely to mitigate more impacts 

to marine mammals from proposed geological and geophysical 

activities than Alternative A. While acknowledging that 

Alternative B includes mitigation measures that would add 

direct costs for operators undertaking G&G activities in the 

AOI (e.g. staff to perform passive acoustic monitoring) as well 

as impose indirect costs (e.g. inconvenience of deploying when 

and where an operator desires), it still falls short of offsetting or 

balancing protection of the coastal environment with competing 

coastal uses.

BOEM has identified Alternative B as the agency’s Preferred 

Alternative. Alternative B would meet the Agency’s purpose and need 

in a manner that balances orderly resource development with protection 

of the human, marine, and coastal environments. Both Alternatives A 

and B include mitigation that would help to protect marine mammals and 

coastal resources. In addition, this EIS is a programmatic document. 

Further NEPA evaluations would be required at the site/project-specific 

level to ensure adequate protection of the environment. 

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.07 

The following mitigation measures should be included in 

BOEM’s Preferred Alternative. Time-Area Closure for North 

Atlantic Right Whales The geographic extent of Alternative A 

does not adequately encompass the area used by North Atlantic 

right whales in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic U.S. Georgia 

DNR supports the expanded time-area closure for seismic air 

gun arrays and non-airgun high-resolution geophysical (HRG) 

surveys proposed in Alternative B with the following caveats: 

Deep stratigraphic and shallow test drilling should not be 

authorized within the right whale time-area closure due to the 

high source levels associated with drillships during drilling (up 

to 191 re 1 μPa; Chapter 3, Page 3-28). The geographic extent 

BOEM has identified Alternative B (which has expanded time-area 

closures relative to Alternative A) as the Agency’s Preferred Alternative. 

In addition, we have revised Chapter 2.1.3.1.1 to indicate that the timearea closures would be responsive to any future revisions of the NARW

critical habitat or SMAs. The comment supports extending the time-area 

closure for Alternative B an additional 10 nmi seaward. BOEM 

considered this recommendation but will retain the 20 nmi distance. 

BOEM’s resource evaluation staff in their 2011 Atlantic OCS Resource 

Assessment (USDOI, BOEM, 2012) projected geological play types that 

would benefit by expansive 2D or 3D seismic surveys along the North 

Carolina coastal area. Such surveys tend to require long periods at sea to 

complete and a time-area closure beyond 20 nmi imposes a restriction on 
L-80 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

of the time-area closure proposed in Alternative B should be 

expanded an additional 10 nautical miles (NM) eastward for 

seismic air gun surveys to further reduce ensonification of right 

whales and their habitat. BOEM predicts that acoustic energy 

from seismic air gun arrays may propagate up to 12,737 m (~7 

NM) at sufficient received pressure levels to cause Level B 

harassment to whales (i.e., 160 dB re 1 μPa; Appendix D, Table 

D-21). The geographic extent of the time-area closure 

proposed in Alternative B is sufficient to limit impacts from 

electromechanical acoustic devices, given their shorter 

propagation distances (i.e., a 10 NM eastward buffer is not 

necessary for electromechanical acoustic devices). NMFS is 

currently revising right whale critical habitat boundaries. 

Unfortunately the revised boundaries are not available at this 

time. However, previous modeling and telemetry studies 

suggest that right whales utilize all Atlantic Ocean waters 

within 20-30 NM of shore from Cape Canaveral, FL and 

northward along the GA, SC and NC coast (Keller et al. 2006ii, 

Garrison 2008iii, Good 2008iv, Schick et al. 2009. The timearea closure proposed in Alternative B encompasses the 

majority of right whale habitat delineated by these studies. 

Any subsequent expansion of right whale critical habitat by 

NMFS in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic U.S. should be 

reflected in the proposed time-area closure, along with a 

10 NM eastward buffer for seismic air gun surveys.

access to potential resource area that is not justified on the basis of 

available information. Because the 20-nmi zone was based on NOAA’s 

SMAs and the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 

224.105), we believe that this distance provides a reasonable protective 

measure for NARWs and other marine mammal species transiting 

through the region. Although not specifically mentioned in the 

Programmatic EIS as activities subject to time-areas closures for 

Alternatives A and B, deep stratigraphic test drilling (>500 ft [152 m] 

below mudline) and shallow test well drilling (<500 ft [152 m] below 

mudline) would not be an activity that BOEM would expect to authorize 

inside of these closure areas when they are in effect. Although these 

activities would not be prohibited, BOEM would review a permit for 

such activity on the merits at the time we receive it, including a NEPA 

evaluation. 

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.08 

High Resolution Geophysical (HRG) Survey Protocol for 

Renewable Energy and Marine Mineral Sites - Georgia DNR 

supports an exemption within the right whale time-area closure 

for non-air gun HRG surveys for renewable energy and marine 

minerals with the following caveat: Non-air gun HRG surveys 

proposed within the right whale time-area closure should be 

permitted on a case-by-case basis. BOEM should require 

applicants to utilize acoustic devices that operate at frequencies 

higher than 22 kHz when operationally feasible. Right whales 

are likely unable to hear sounds above 22 kHz (Parks et al. 

2001v). 

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. As a result of the clarification, time-area closures would 

generally not be applied to surveys using non airgun HRG acoustic 

sources. However, some exceptions exist. For example surveys 

authorized outside, but in the proximity of DMA boundaries are required 

to remain at a distance such that received levels for all sound sources, at 

these boundaries do not exceed the Level B harassment threshold, as 

determined by field verification or modeling. However, those non 

airgun HRG surveys which are proposed within NARW critical habitat 

and proposed to use acoustic sources within the NARW estimated 

functional hearing range will require further review prior to 

authorization. The additional review will need to establish if the surveys 

could have been planned outside of the calving and nursing season and if 

they fill a critical need. Those clarifications have been finalized with

NMFS through formal Section 7 consultation, including additional 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-81

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

information regarding non-airgun HRG surveys that explained BOEM’s 

strategy to mitigate or avoid adverse impacts to NARWs in SMAs and 

critical habitat and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (Appendix A). 

The Programmatic EIS has been revised to ensure that it clearly and 

consistently indicates what G&G methods and equipment are subject to 

time-area closures and other mitigation requirements. Please refer to 

Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated survey protocols.

We have also identified the review and approval process that would be 

utilized for site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5.

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.09 

Guidance for Vessel Strike Avoidance - Vessel collisions are a 

leading cause of North Atlantic right whale mortality. Reducing 

vessel speeds to 10 kts or lower likely reduces the risk of whale 

mortality (Pace and Sliber 2005vi, Vanderlaan and Taggart 

2007vii). Georgia DNR supports the vessel strike avoidance 

measures outlined in Alternative A and B with the following 

caveats: All vessels 65 ft or greater, including federal and 

federal contract vessels, should travel at speeds of 10 kts or less 

within the right whale time-area closure to reduce risk of right 

whale collisions. Vessels less than 65 ft in length should 

reduce their speed within the right whale time-area closure 

when traveling at night and during other periods of reduced 

visibility. All vessels operating within the right whale timearea closure should have a properly installed and operational 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) on board. The vessel 

call sign, vessel name and BOEM permit number should be 

provided to NMFS prior to entering the time-area closure. 

North Atlantic right whales are the primary species of whale 

observed within the portion of the time-area closure located 

offshore of SC, GA and FL (Georgia DNR, unpublished data). 

As such, vessel crews should assume that all whales observed 

within the time-area closure offshore of SC, GA and FL are 

likely North Atlantic right whales and maintain 1,500 ft 

separation accordingly.

The risk of vessel strikes from survey vessels is low as noted in 

Chapter 4.2.2.2.2. BOEM’s proposed guidance for vessel strike 

avoidance is consistent with the speed recommendations noted in this 

comment. All authorizations for shipboard surveys, regardless of vessel 

size, would include guidance for vessel strike avoidance while in transit. 

The guidance would be similar to NTL 2012-JOINT-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. Vessel operators, crews, visual observers or PSOs 

must maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and sea turtles and 

slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species.

Vessel speed shall also operate within the 10 kn (18.5 km/h) speed 

restriction in: DMAs, Mid-Atlantic U.S. The SMAs from November 1 

through April 30, and critical habitat and Southeast U.S. SMAs from 

November 15 through April 15 (in accordance with NMFS Compliance 

Guide for the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR §

224.105). 

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 the proposed action, survey 

at a speed of approximately 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). In addition, waters 

surrounding survey vessels, for airguns and non airgun HRG equipment 

operating below 200 kHz, would be monitored by PSOs for the presence 

of all marine mammals and sea turtles. Outside of critical habitat, 

SMAs, and DMAs during transit to and from shore bases, seismic 

vessels and other survey vessels are expected to travel at greater speeds. 

However, as noted above, these vessel movements would be subject to 

BOEM guidance for vessel strike avoidance and be required to reduce 

speed in certain areas to comply with the Right Whale Ship Strike 

Reduction Rule and when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages 
L-82 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel. BOEM also 

conducted ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS regarding the 

proposed action and will comply with reasonable and prudent measures 

to protect right whales and other endangered species as specified in the 

Biological Opinion (see Appendix A).

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.10 

Acoustic Modeling and Marine Mammal Incidental Take 

Methodology - The animal behavior values selected for right 

whales in the AIM model were taken from studies of right 

whale foraging in the Northeast U.S. and Canada and do not 

accurately reflect behavior and habitat in the Southeast U.S.

Right whales are not known to feed in the Southeast U.S. and 

their Southeast U.S. habitat is considerably shallower (10-30 

m) than the dive values selected in the AIM model (113-130 m; 

Appendix E, page E-32). Nousek-McGregor (2010viii) found 

that right whales tagged in the Southeast U.S. either submerged 

immediately below the surface for 2 min on average, or dove to 

the bottom to a depth of only 10-20 m for 7 min on average.

Surface intervals in that study averaged 1-2 min, although we 

have documented surface intervals in excess of 30 min in the 

case of females with calves (Georgia DNR, unpublished data). 

BOEM should re-run the AIM model for right whales with 

values that more accurately reflect right whale behavior and 

habitat in the Southeast U.S. Any resulting changes in take 

estimates should be highlighted in the Final EIS.

Appendix E omitted the behavioral parameter for wintering right 

whales, but they were modeled appropriately and their behavioral 

parameters have now been added to Appendix E. 

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.11 

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures: Sea Turtles - GADNR 

supports the proposed time-area closure offshore of Brevard 

County, FL outlined in Alternative B to protect nesting 

loggerhead sea turtles.

Comment noted.

Kelie Moore, 

Georgia DNR 

Coastal Resources 

Division

SA-E-4 0.12 

Duplicate letter (SA-L-3) included in this comment package. See comment entries for SA-L-3 for responses.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.01 

As noted in Governor O'Malley’s May 27, 2010 letter to 

Secretary Salazar, Maryland remains opposed to oil and gas 

exploration and development activities in the Mid-Atlantic 

region (Maryland, Virginia and Delaware). Oil and gas 

exploration and development in our Mid-Atlantic waters could 

put our sensitive coastal and marine areas at risk and 

consequently jeopardize our recreational, tourist, and fishing 

industries. 

BOEM was directed by Congress to conduct a Programmatic EIS to 

evaluate potential impacts from G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS. 

The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not evaluate oil and gas 

leasing nor does it authorize an OCS lease sale. Further NEPA 

evaluation would be required for that.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-83

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.02 

There are significant data and information gaps regarding 

marine mammal, turtle and benthic habitat density and 

distribution in the Mid-Atlantic region. This lack of 

information precludes an accurate analysis of the potential 

impacts of the oil and gas related G&G activities. Marine 

mammals and turtles are particularly vulnerable to G & G 

activities, some of which are rare, threatened or endangered.

The Programmatic EIS uses the best available information in its analysis 

of impacts to resources. Available data have been found adequate for 

analysis purposes in numerous other NEPA documents preceding this 

Programmatic EIS. The requirements of 40 CFR § 1502.22 for the 

treatment of incomplete and unavailable information have been met in 

this Programmatic EIS. The existence of incomplete and unavailable 

information was addressed in the following chapters: for sensitive 

benthic communities in Chapters 4.2.1.1.2 and 4.2.1.2.2; for marine 

mammals in Chapter 4.2.2.1; and for sea turtles in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2. 

BOEM believes that the available information is adequate to assess 

impacts to marine mammals, sea turtles, benthic communities, and other 

resources. As a result, the missing information is not essential to support 

a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.03 

The proposed oil and gas related G&G activities pose 

additional restrictions to an already busy Mid-Atlantic region 

and are likely not compatible with existing coastal uses. The 

proposed activities will only add to potential coastal use 

conflicts and potentially diminish the value of key regional 

assets, such as the Ports of Baltimore and Norfolk, the Naval 

Air Station Patuxent River, and the Wallops Flight Facility. 

Additional constraints due to G&G surveys drive up shipping 

times and costs thereby reducing commercial competitiveness 

and could cause safety concerns during military operations.

The issues raised in this comment are addressed in Chapter 4.2.12

(Other Marine Uses). The analysis included vessel traffic, vessel 

exclusion zones, aircraft traffic and noise, seafloor disturbance, and 

accidental fuel spills. The potential impacts were evaluated as ranging 

from negligible to negligible-minor and would not diminish the value of 

key regional assets, drive up shipping times and costs, or cause safety 

concerns during military operations. BOEM has been in contact with 

NASA and branches of the military regarding the proposed action, and 

their input led to changes in Chapter 2.1.2.5 (“Guidance for Military 

and NASA Coordination”). They will also be consulted during future 

evaluations of site-specific actions.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.04 

We encourage BOEM to adopt the No Action Alternative so 

that it can better address potential conflicting uses through the 

ocean planning process as called for in the President's National 

Ocean Policy Executive Order. 

Comment noted.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.05 

In closing, Maryland is most anxious to move forward 

expeditiously on the development of renewables like offshore 

wind. 

Comment noted.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.06 

Benthic Habitats - The PEIS recommends avoiding hard 

bottom habitats by staying clear of locations with unique 

benthic features, but this would only apply in areas where 

known locations exist. In general, locations of hard bottom, 

coral and other unique benthic ocean habitats in the MidAtlantic are largely unknown. Impacts to the seafloor off the 

coast of Maryland are hard to measure, as there is little to no 

documentation of the seafloor habitat. There is evidence of 

cold-water and deep-water corals, but no extensive mapping 

As noted in Chapter 3.5.1.8, BOEM will 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 will use this information to 

ensure that physical impacts to sensitive benthic communities are 

avoided. With regard to mapping of sensitive benthic habitats, BOEM,

working with NOAA, has developed the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, 
L-84 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

has been completed. This does not mean there will not be an 

impact, only that it cannot be measured. Recommendation: A 

comprehensive data set of known locations should be 

assembled and additional surveys should be conducted in order 

to accurately assess potential impacts.

an integrated marine information system that provides legal, physical, 

ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic 

information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-GasEnergy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-Purpose-Marine-CadastreMap-Viewer/Index.aspx).

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.07 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles - Limited data exist in the 

Mid-Atlantic that describe marine mammal and sea turtle 

migration pathways and key habitat areas for these populations. 

Recommendation: New, baseline studies need to be conducted 

to help refine survey activity area and/or time of year 

restrictions.

The U.S. NAVY’s Operating Area Density Estimates (NODE) data are 

currently the best available data for estimating marine mammal densities 

in the Mid/South Atlantic Planning Areas. BOEM has used these data 

within the analyses contained within this Programmatic EIS. The data 

are also used as part of the marine mammal take estimations via the 

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM).

BOEM does agree and recognize that there are data gaps in marine 

mammal density information for these areas. As such, we have 

partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and other organizations to fund projects to improve biological 

information on protected species in the U.S. Atlantic. Two notable 

programs include the following: 

• Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS)

– This is an effort to collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the 

seasonal distribution and abundance of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds), marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard 

surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters. The project will also 

collect similar data at finer scales at several sites of particular interest to 

NMFS and BOEM. Importantly, AMAPPS also seeks to assess the 

population size of surveyed species at regional scales and develop 

models and associated tools to translate these survey data into seasonal, 

spatially explicit density estimates incorporating habitat characteristics 

(see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/protspp/mainpage/ AMAPPS/

index.html and http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/ Environmental_

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/AT-10-x11.pdf). 

• BOEM, working with NOAA, has developed the Multipurpose Marine 

Cadastre, an integrated marine information system that provides legal, 

physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic 

information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-GasEnergy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-Purpose-Marine-CadastreMap-Viewer/Index.aspx).

Ultimately, NEPA requires that Federal agencies use the best available 

information in environmental impact statements, which BOEM has done. 

Chapter 4.2.2 discusses incomplete and unavailable information on 

marine mammals. BOEM believes that the available information is 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-85

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

adequate to assess impacts. As a result the missing information is not 

essential to support a reasoned choice among alternatives. BOEM will 

continue to monitor the results of AMAPPS and other relevant studies 

(i.e., NOAA Sound and Cetacean Density Mapping) to ensure any 

updated data are considered as they become available to support future, 

site/permit-specific NEPA evaluations of individual survey applications. 

Sea turtles are smaller than marine mammals, and therefore more elusive 

and difficult to observe in natural conditions, nevertheless, 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. 

Chapter 4.2.3 discusses incomplete and unavailable information on sea 

turtles. BOEM believes that the available information is adequate to 

assess impacts. As a result the missing information is not essential to 

support a reasoned choice among alternatives. New baseline studies will 

contribute to knowledge for how these species use the AOI and how our 

activities affect them.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.08 

Protection of Marine Mammals and Turtles Requires 

Appropriate Observers On Board Vessels - Trained 

objective observers on board the vessels will help ensure 

accurate and timely identification and response so that impacts 

to these communities will be minimized. The observers should 

be properly qualified (marine biologist trained to study marine 

mammals and/or sea turtles) and objective (they do not have a 

conflict of interest, i.e., not an employee or consultant to the oil 

and gas industry). Recommendation: Require properly trained 

objective observers to be on board vessels during G&G surveys 

to minimize impacts to marine mammals and turtles. 

Training requirements are outlined in Appendix C, Table C-7.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.09 

Protection of Marine Mammals and Turtles Requires 

Adequate Restrictions to Vessel and Survey Activity Based 

on Sufficient Advanced Warning, Sea Conditions, 

Geographically Accurate Information and Appropriate 

Technology - Throughout draft PEIS it is noted that vessel and 

survey activity will be interrupted or modified to minimize 

impacts when marine mammals are observed or suspected 

within certain distances from the ship. Sufficient Advanced 

Warning - BOEM should ensure that adequate protocols are in 

place so that the crew has sufficient time to alter operations 

once a marine mammal or turtle is sensed or suspected near the 

vessel. Proper protocols will help avoid significant direct or 

indirect impacts (such as collision, hearing loss or any activity 

affecting migratory or foraging activity to the point where 

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol is based upon and very similar to 

the protocol that has been used for several years in the Gulf of Mexico as 

documented in a recent report (Barkaszi et al., 2012). Similar protocols 

are also used internationally. Therefore, both seismic survey operators 

and PSOs have considerable experience to draw upon in implementing 

these mitigation measures. In addition, Alternative B, which has been 

identified as BOEM’s Preferred Alternative, requires PAM for seismic 

surveys to enhance detection of vocalizing marine mammals and may be 

used as an additional monitoring technology for HRG surveys using 

sources operating at frequencies at or below 200 kHz. Finally, a section 

on Adaptive Management has been added to the Programmatic EIS (see 

Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7). As part of its Adaptive 

Management program BOEM intends to review the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures based on monitoring data collected by PSOs during 
L-86 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

health is compromised or significantly degraded). Sea 

Conditions - Sea conditions can affect the ability of even the 

best-qualified professional to locate and observe marine 

mammals or turtles. If visual observation is the primary means 

for identifying the presence of marine mammals and turtles, 

then vessel and survey activity should be limited to those times 

when sea conditions will allow ample time to locate their 

position and respond in a protective manner. Geographically 

Accurate Information and Appropriate Technology: In addition 

to visual observations by trained, objective professionals, there 

are additional means for anticipating and sensing the potential 

presence of marine mammals and turtles. For example, maps 

depicting the migration corridors can help the ship crew avoid 

certain areas during certain times of the year. ln addition, 

observations made to prevent impacts can also help augment 

the initial survey data. Geographic Information Systems on 

board the vessel can help integrate various information layers 

such as energy resources, marine life and navigational routes to 

help make optimal decisions. Technologies such as listening 

devices for hearing marine mammals, sonar used to locate fish 

or marine mammals or radio signals from tagged organisms or 

even drones flying or navigating ahead of a ship can be 

deployed to increase the ability to sense and respond to marine 

mammals and turtles. Recommendation: The above factors 

should be integrated and applied strategically to enhance the 

ability of G & G survey companies to sense, anticipate and 

respond to potential encounters with marine mammals and 

turtles.

G&G surveys.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.10 

Include Commercial Navigation as Separate Subheading in 

Future NEPA Analysis - The draft PEIS addresses existing 

conditions and considers potential effects of G&G activities on 

commercial shipping primarily in sections 2.1.3.12, 2.2.3.12 

and 2.3.3.12 (Impacts on Other Marine Uses) of the document.

Recommendation: Given the significance of commercial 

navigation throughout the region, we strongly recommend that 

BOEM provide this information in a standalone impact 

subheading in future NEPA analysis and documentation.

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-87

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.11 

Require Notification of Local Pilot Associations and 

Commercial Seaports in Addition to Local Harbormaster 

and Coast Guard - The section entitled "Impacts on Other 

Marine Uses" (section 2.1.3.12) indicates that the local 

harbormaster and US Coast Guard will be notified of proposed 

vessel exclusion areas. Recommendation: We recommend that 

the local pilot associations and commercial seaports also be 

notified of planned vessel exclusion zones.

As indicated in Chapter 3.5.1.5, prior to conducting a G&G 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 and is the standard 

mechanism for notifying other marine users of the planned activities.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.12 

Access to Port of Baltimore Includes Both Chesapeake Bay 

Entrance and Delaware Bay Via the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal -Sections 3.6.8 and 4.2.12.1.1 entitled 

“Shipping and Marine Transportation” correctly recognizes that 

the Port of Baltimore is accessed through the Chesapeake Bay 

entrance to the Atlantic Ocean. However, this section does not 

indicate that the Port of Baltimore is also accessed from the 

Delaware Bay via the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Due to 

its location, the Port of Baltimore is therefore subject to 

impacts to navigation from both entrances. Recommendation: 

We recommend that BOEM revise these sections in the final 

PEIS to reflect both accesses to the Port of Baltimore. 

Text has been revised in Chapters 3.6.8 and 4.2.12.1.1 to address this 

comment.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.13 

Include Navigational Surveys in Future NEPA Studies -

Recommendation: Surveys planned adjacent to traffic 

separation schemes, fairways, and other important navigation 

areas leading to Atlantic Coast seaports should be reviewed as 

part of future site-specific NEPA analysis and documentation 

for foreseeable impacts on commercial shipping.

Comment noted.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.14 

Include Impacts of Northern Right Whale Restrictions -

Recommendation: The impact on commercial shipping and 

marine transportation associated with an expansion of the 

Northern Right Whale seasonal speed restrictions should be 

considered as part of further NEPA documentation for sitespecific activities.

Comment noted.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.15 

Cumulative Effects of Proposed OCS Activities -The draft 

PEIS indicates that cumulative effects of the full spectrum of 

proposed OCS activities, including wind energy development 

and oil and gas activities, have been considered. 

Recommendation: Maryland encourages BOEM to continue to 

consider the cumulative effects of these activities as part of the 

NEPA process for future OCS decisions utilizing all available 

information including the US Coast Guard's Atlantic Coast Port 

Access Routing Study and Maryland's previous 

Comment noted.
L-88 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

communications regarding offshore Wind Energy Areas and 

the Atlantic Wind Connection Project.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.16 

Section 1.6.5. Introduction. Coastal Zone Management Act, 

and Section 5.6. Consultation and Coordination. Coastal Zone 

Management Act. These Sections discuss the Federal Coastal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA) and, more specifically, the 

requirements of Section 307 that proposed federal activities be 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable with a State’s 

federally-approved Coastal Zone Management Program. These 

discussions note that OCS plans and any federal permits, e.g. 

permit from BOEM for proposed survey activities, required for 

OCS activities are subject to the Section 307 Federal 

Consistency provisions. Based on these discussions, MDE 

presumes that it is BOEM’s position that a Federal Consistency 

determination, pursuant to Section 307(c)(1) - Direct Federal 

Actions - is not required for the G&G survey activities 

evaluated in the PEIS. If so, this should be specifically/clearly 

stated in these Sections of the PEIS. 

This Programmatic EIS does not authorize any G&G activities, approve 

any OCS plan, or issue any permits and therefore a CZM consistency 

determination is not required. Chapter 1.7.5, Subsequent Actions 

Required Before Permits May Be Issued, of this Programmatic EIS has 

been added to explain that the Programmatic EIS provides the 

framework for subsequent environmental documents for future, 

site/permit-specific actions. Under subpart D of 15 CFR part 930 of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the applicant is required to 

provide the necessary data and information and a consistency 

certification to the State Coastal Management Program (CMP) and 

Federal agency stating that the activities will be consistent with the 

enforceable policies of the State CMP. As discussed in Chapter 5.7.1 of 

this EIS, requirements for the CZM 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). BOEM may not authorize the activity to commence 

unless a letter of concurrence is received from the State CMP or BOEM 

presumes concurrence based on 15 CFR § 930.62. 

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.17 

Section 1.6.16. Introduction. State Permitting. This Section 

discusses State permitting requirements for the States within 

the AOI for any proposed G&G survey activities in a State’s 

waters. The Section notes that all survey activities would 

require a license from the State of Georgia to use publicly 

owned lands beneath the mean high watermark. In addition, 

any “bottom-disturbing” activities would also require an 

authorization from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Florida. It concludes with the statement, “For all other 

states within the AOI, no state permits other than the CZMA 

requirements would be required for G&G survey activities.” lt 

is not clear why Maryland is not included on the list of states 

requiring authorization for bottom-disturbing activities. This 

Section should point out that a 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. 

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.6.18 to address this comment.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-89

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.18 

Section 2.1.3.6 White Marlin are currently under review for 

consideration to be listed. Interactions are well documented off 

Maryland and along the Atlantic Coast. Atlantic Sturgeon have 

been listed, and a number of interactions have been 

documented off Maryland. Impacts to the habitat of these 

species should be documented. 

See Chapter 4.2.6.1-white marlin and scalloped hammerhead were 

mentioned in the text as petitioned species--not candidates yet. As of 

January 30, 2013, NMFS determined that petitions for the white marlin 

do not present substantial scientific information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. Chapter 4.2.6.1.3 has been revised 

to reflect the current status of the Atlantic sturgeon.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.19 

Section 4.2.1.1.1 The description of the Mid-Atlantic Bight

(MAB) benthic communities was largely based on a book 

published in 1979. Based on the changes in fisheries since that 

time, including expansion of ranges for many species, and 

rebounding of stocks, there are likely changes in the benthic 

community that are not documented. The description of the 

benthic community is likely outdated.

Chapter 4.2.1.1.1 has been revised to provide additional, more recent 

information. The Boesch (1979) report summarized a landmark 

multidisciplinary study of the continental shelf that remains useful and 

relevant. Through its Environmental Studies Program, BOEM is 

continuing to collect and synthesize information about the Atlantic 

environment to be used in future, site/specific-specific NEPA 

evaluations. 

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.20 

Section 4.2.1.2.2 Evaluation “The stress responses to marine 

invertebrates could potentially affect populations by reducing 

reproductive capacity and adult abundance.” This section 

specifically mentions lobster, and studies that indicated 

sublethal effects that were sometimes observed weeks to 

months after exposure. The Southern New England stock of 

American Lobster are currently experiencing recruitment 

failure (ASMFC 2010). This stock occurs from Long Island 

Sound through the waters off North Carolina. American 

Lobster stocks in Southern New England can ill-afford 

additional impacts to their reproductive capacity. Additionally, 

there is limited, dated information on the benthic community in 

the MAB. Based on these concerns, Maryland believes that 

that impacts to benthic communities from active acoustic sound 

sources have been under-estimated. 

Chapter 4.2.1.2.2 and Appendix J have been revised to include 

additional information about potential impacts to invertebrates. Based 

on the literature reviewed in Appendix J, seismic surveys are not 

expected to cause significant short-term or long-term effects on lobsters 

or other benthic invertebrates.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.21 

Section 4.2.7 Commercial Fisheries Table 4-28: Primary 

commercial species landed during 2006-2009 by state -these 

are not species that are not primary species landed from the 

AOI. For Maryland, Striped Bass, Clams, and Blue Crabs are 

listed; while Striped Bass and Blue Crabs are landed within or 

near the AOI, they are primarily harvested within the 

Chesapeake Bay. This table does not accurately represent the 

commercial coastal fishery in Maryland. Of primary concern 

are likely to be fisheries for spiny dogfish, scallops, striped 

bass, flounder, horseshoe crabs, rays, and clams. Additional 

fisheries include tuna, swordfish, lobster, black sea bass, and 

tautog, among others. Please feel free to contact us if you 

would like additional information. 

Chapter 4.2.7.1.1 has been revised to address this comment.
L-90 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.22 

Section 4.2.7.2.2 Evaluation Active Acoustic Sound Sources 

Although the PEIS determined that the affects to commercial 

fisheries would be “minor”, the local impact could be 

significant, Figure 4-21 indicates that April through August 

would be peak times for the survey work. The commercial 

fleet that operates out of Ocean City, Maryland is relatively 

small, and any impacts to that fishery during that period would 

be felt significantly. 

The analysis in this Programmatic EIS has taken a programmatic view of 

proposed G&G surveys and resultant potential impacts. Future sitespecific analyses will provide more detailed information regarding a 

proposed project and a more focused look at affected resources, such as 

the Ocean City commercial fleet. Future site-specific NEPA analyses 

could also include additional mitigation to minimize potential impacts on 

commercial fishing, if needed.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.23 

Section 4.2.8.1.1 Recreational Fisheries - Description of the 

Affected Environment -Recreational Fishing Effort A word of 

caution: these estimates of effort were based on the Random 

Digit Dial (RDD) telephone survey of coastal counties. The 

methodology for estimating effort has changed and is now 

based on the National Angler Registry (i.e., a phone book of all 

licensed coastal anglers that was implemented in 2010). Use of 

the Registry should result in better estimates, and is expected to 

result in higher estimates than previously calculated. 

The data used to determine effort was the best available data at the time 

the Programmatic EIS was prepared. Future site-specific NEPA analysis 

will evaluate impacts to specific resources, including recreational 

fisheries, and will use the most recent data available at that time.

Cecilia Bast, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SA-E-7 0.24 

Section 4.2.8.2.2 Evaluation Active Acoustic Sound Sources 

The PEIS does not adequately address the potential impacts on 

the recreational fishing community. Maryland disagrees that 

there would be a negligible effect on recreational fishing, 

especially at the local level. A lot of fishing is not about 

catching, but about the experience. People are not likely to 

want to go fishing if airguns are being deployed. While there 

may not be evidence of fish mortality from some of these G&G 

activities, a disturbance caused by airguns may drive fish away 

resulting in poor fishing for an entire year. Artificial-reef 

associated fish may vacate the reef and once they have vacated, 

they may colonize another reef and not return to their reef of 

origin. Lastly, in Ocean City, Maryland, there are several high 

dollar tournaments (e.g., White Marlin Open, and the MidAtlantic $500,000) that are important to the local economy. 

Should G&G activities occur during those times or before those 

tournaments impacting the availability of fish, it will have a ma 

or effect on the local economy and recreational fishing. 

BOEM recognizes the importance of recreational fishing including 

tournaments and the economic benefit they provide to Maryland and 

other Atlantic coastal states. The Programmatic EIS has been revised to 

provide additional analysis of this issue in Chapter 4.2.8.2.2. Future 

site-specific NEPA analyses would consider impacts at particular 

locations and times and could include additional mitigation to minimize 

potential impacts on recreational fishing, if needed.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-91

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Matthew Fleming, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SAPHA-1 0.01 

On behalf of Secretary John Griffin, let me thank you for the 

opportunity today to communicate Maryland’s position 

regarding the proposed offshore oil and gas events.· Like to 

draw your attention to a letter submitted to Secretary Salazar, 

signed by Governor O’Malley on May 22, 2017 opposing oil 

and gas drilling in the Mid-Atlantic region, which we will be 

submitting as part of the comments today.·

Comment noted.

Matthew Fleming, 

Maryland 

Department of 

Natural Resources

SAPHA-1 0.02 

The O'Malley administration believes seismic testing should 

not be done until after completion of the regional ocean 

planning process called for in the National Ocean Plan pursuant 

to Presidential Executive Order 13547. We also -- we believe 

that the position to oppose the G&G surveys at this time does 

not embed BOEM for approving the surveys needed to 

determine sea floor conditions for renewable energy 

installations and marine mammal deposits.· This is based on 

our belief that BOEM has the authority to approve these 

activities pursuant to existing regulations and processes

Comment noted.

Christopher 

Moore, MidAtlantic Fishery 

Management 

Council 

SA-L-4 0.01 

It is clear that G&G activities have substantial impacts on 

marine environments, yet the Draft PEIS provides insufficient 

information about how the specific proposed G&G activities 

may affect fish, marine mammals, benthic communities, and 

ecosystem structure and function. We understand that these 

impacts are difficult to predict or quantify, but given the 

existing value of marine resources to the region and the nation, 

it is clear that the potential benefits do not outweigh the risks of 

initiating the proposed G&G activities at this point.

The Programmatic EIS provides a very detailed description for the entire 

process used in assessing impacts from the proposed action. Chapter 

3.0 contains a detailed summary of G&G activities, including the 

projected activity scenario for each of the three programs with number of 

line miles of seismic airgun surveys. Chapter 4.0 takes the reader 

through a detailed description for each step in the impact assessment 

process beginning with a screening of potentially impacted resources, 

followed by an analysis of impact levels and impact significance criteria, 

leading to an analysis of impact-producing factors. A number of 

appendices are included to provide more in-depth discussion and 

analysis of a number of important topics such as acoustic modeling and 

incidental take methodology. Specifically, Chapters 4.2-4.4 provides a 

detailed analysis of the impacts to all resources, including fish, marine 

mammals, and benthic communities, from the G&G survey activities. 

Although BOEM has identified incomplete and unavailable information 

as indicated in Chapter 4.1.4.1 and in individual resource analyses in 

Chapter 4.0, BOEM believes that the available information is adequate 

to support a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Christopher 

Moore, MidAtlantic Fishery 

Management 

Council 

SA-L-4 0.02 

The commercial and recreational fishing industries in the 

Mid-Atlantic region support more than 166,000 jobs with an 

associated income exceeding $6 billion. In light of the 

insufficient data and analysis about potential impacts of G&G 

activities on these valuable marine resources, the Council 

cannot support the Draft PEIS.

BOEM believes that the data available is adequate to assess impacts to 

commercial and recreational fisheries resources and reach conclusions 

regarding impact to support a reasoned choice among alternatives. 

Fisheries resources were evaluated in Chapter 4.2.5 for the following 

impact-producing factors: active acoustic sound sources, vessel and 

equipment noise, seafloor disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental 
L-92 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

fuel spills. The potential impacts were found to range from negligible to 

minor. Potential impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries were 

analyzed in Chapters 4.2.7 and 4.2.8, respectively.

Christopher 

Moore, MidAtlantic Fishery 

Management 

Council 

SA-L-4 0.03 

However, the extensive (months long) survey timeframe makes 

it likely that prolonged avoidance of the arrays will be 

necessary and could lead to interruptions in fish spawning and 

access to forage. More importantly, the area under 

consideration in the PEIS, which includes the entire continental 

shelf along the mid- and South Atlantic, is enormous, and much 

of the shelf is at a depth (<50 m) that would place the entire 

water column within the “lethal range” of the array.

As explained in Chapter 3.0 of the Programmatic EIS, while G&G

surveys may require extended periods to complete, the area covered 

during that time is quite large and survey vessels are only in any given 

location for a brief period. The analysis in Chapter 4.0 concludes that 

impacts would be localized and short-term, and the significance would 

range from negligible to minor-moderate. 

Christopher 

Moore, MidAtlantic Fishery 

Management 

Council 

SA-L-4 0.04 

The Council also has substantial concerns about the potential 

and unknown adverse impacts of G&G activities on marine 

mammals. The Council has participated in the development of 

Take Reduction Plans under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act for Atlantic Large Whales, Harbor Porpoise and Bottlenose 

Dolphin. These efforts have resulted in area and gear 

restrictions for several fisheries within the Council’s 

jurisdiction. In the case of north Atlantic right whales, which 

are among the most endangered whales in the world, protection 

measures have been extended to include seasonal vessel speed 

restrictions along the U.S. East Coast where endangered right 

whales travel to protect them from being injured of killed by 

ships. Initiating the activities described in the PEIS, many of 

which could harm or endanger marine mammals, would 

counteract many of the conservation measures that have taken 

years to enact.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS both the Seismic Airgun 

and HRG Survey Protocols have been clarified and additional vessel 

strike avoidance measures have been incorporated into the protocols. 

Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for specific information 

related to the updated survey protocols. In addition, operators will be 

required to satisfy the requirements of all other agencies before an

authorization will be issued. Further mitigation requirements may be 

applied associated with MMPA ITAs issued by NMFS or FWS for 

site/permit-specific actions. 

Christopher 

Moore, MidAtlantic Fishery 

Management 

Council 

SA-L-4 0.05 

The general lack of information included in the PEIS relative to 

impacts of G&G activities on fish, marine mammals, and the 

surrounding ecosystem is of serious concern.

BOEM has identified incomplete and unavailable information as 

required by NEPA regulations at 40 CFR § 1502.22, as indicated in 

Chapter 4.1.4.1 and in individual resource analyses in Chapter 4.0. 

However, BOEM believes that the available information is adequate to 

assess impacts to commercial and recreational fisheries resources, 

marine mammals, and other ecosystem components and to reach 

conclusions regarding impact. As a result. the missing information is not 

essential to support a reasoned choice among alternatives.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.01 

Coastal Mgt., The DEIS notes that survey vessel traffic has the 

potential to temporarily disrupt fishing operations, that the use 

of acoustic devices can result in fish behaving differently, hard 

bottom disturbances, and that “marine space, use issues” are a 

growing concern. With that in mind, DCM suggests the 

inclusion, in the FEIS, of a mitigation measure to require that 

BOEM does not believe that a mitigation measure is needed to address 

the issue raised in this comment. The NEPA evaluations for site-specific 

permit applications would consider resources such as commercial or 

recreational fishing and would provide the basis for determining whether 

additional mitigation is required to minimize adverse impacts on fishing. 

Under subpart D of 15 CFR part 930 of the Coastal Zone Management 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-93

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

an applicant for a BOEM G&G permit provide an assessment 

on whether the proposed G&G surveying activity would or 

would not have an effect on commercial and recreational 

fishing. This information would then be used as a basis for 

determining whether State consistency review would be 

required and for determining whether mitigation measures 

would be necessary to minimize adverse effects on commercial 

and recreational fishing.

Act (CZMA), the applicant is required to provide the necessary data and 

information and a consistency certification to the State Coastal 

Management Program (CMP) and Federal agency stating that the 

activities will be consistent with the enforceable policies of the State 

CMP. As discussed in Chapter 5.7.1 of this Programmatic EIS, 

requirements for the CZM 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). BOEM may not authorize the activity to commence 

unless a letter of concurrence is received from the State CMP or BOEM 

presumes concurrence based on 15 CFR § 930.62.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.02 

Coastal Zone Management Act (Section 1.6.5 and Section 5.6): 

These two sections require a degree of editorial revision in the 

final environmental impact statement (FEIS) to further clarify 

the consistency review process. The DEIS correctly notes that: 

“There are several standards of “Federal consistency”, 

however, these standards are not clearly articulated. For 

example, the DEIS notes that: “Federal agency activities must 

be “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” with 

relevant enforceable policies ... , “however the standard “if an 

activity will have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects, the 

activity is subject to Federal consistency... is lost in the overall 

verbiage. The preceding sentence is also incomplete since it 

needs to incorporate the concept: “effect on any coastal use or 

coastal resource”.

Chapter 5.7.1, regarding CZM, has been revised to address the concern.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.03 

Coastal Zone Management Act (Section 1.6.5 and Section 5.6): 

The DEIS notes that G&G ancillary seismic activities may 

require the preparation of an OCS plan. While that may be 

accurate, the relevance of "Ancillary Activities" discussion to 

the overall consistency review process is unclear.

Ancillary activities bear mentioning because they are part of the 

proposed action and because any activities authorized by BOEM that 

have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are subject to Federal 

consistency review.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.04 

Coastal Zone Management Act (Section 1.6.5 and Section 5.6): 

While factual, the statement that: “G&G activities conducted 

by another Federal agency are not subject to BOEM 

authorization.” does not negate the fact that these proposed 

activities may still require consistency review.

Text in Chapter 5.7.1 has been revised to address the concern.
L-94 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.05 

Coastal Zone Management Act (Section 1.6.5 and Section 5.6): 

These sections do not disclose how BOEM intends to inform a 

State on proposed activities that could potentially have a 

“coastal effect” that may consequently require consistency 

review. We recommend that BOEM provide a brief description 

in the FEIS concerning how a State will be notified concerning 

proposed activities that may have a “coastal effect”.

Text has been included in Chapter 1.7.5 to address this comment. 

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.06 

In analyzing seismic survey impacts, it will be imperative that 

the PEIS address the effects on fish and fish habitat including 

sub-lethal behavioral changes due to mechanically and 

electrically generated acoustic sources. These impacts could 

possibly include changes in feeding behavior, interruption of 

spawning behavior and effects from episodic acoustic events.

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.5.2.2 to address this comment.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.07 

Due to the habitat potential, all of the hard bottoms in the south 

Atlantic are designated by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service as Essential Fish Habitat under the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act of 1994. Beyond the edge of the continental shelf 

(greater than 600 m) there have recently been discovered, areas 

of deep water corals including Lophelia and Enalopsammli. 

Since deep penetration, deep-tow side scan sonar and 

electromagnetic surveys involve towed cables or receivers 

placed on the sea floor, the PEIS must address physical impacts 

to these habitats. As the deep-water corals are especially 

fragile, activities in and around these communities, particularly 

the use of deep-tow side scan sonar utilizing a chain dragged 

along the seafloor, must avoid these areas to preserve this 

biological community.

Chapter 2.1.2.1.3.2 discusses avoidance requirements for sensitive 

benthic communities and Chapter 4.2.1.2.2 addresses potential impacts 

on these communities. BOEM will require site-specific information 

regarding sensitive benthic communities (including deepwater coral 

communities) prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloordisturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures. All authorizations for seafloor-disturbing activities would be 

subject to restrictions to protect sensitive benthic communities that may 

include requirements for mapping and avoidance, as well as predeployment photographic surveys of areas where bottom-founded 

instrumentation and appurtenances are to be deployed. Deep-tow sidescan sonar surveys using a chain dragged along the seafloor are not part 

of the activity scenario analyzed in the Programmatic EIS. As discussed 

in Chapter 3.2.2.2, deep-tow side-scan sonar surveys typically are 

conducted for post-lease engineering studies involving the placement of 

production facilities and pipelines in deep water. Although in the past 

these surveys used a towed chain to assure consistent distance above the 

bottom, this approach has been replaced by the use of autonomous 

underwater vehicles (AUVs) or other systems that operate with a towed 

cable that doesn’t disturb the seafloor.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.08 

Division of Parks and Rec - There are at least three State Parks 

(Fort Macon, Bear Island/Hammocks Beach, and Jockey's 

Ridge), two State Natural Areas (Bald Head Island and 

Theodore Roosevelt), and one State Recreational Area 

(Fort Fisher) that are situated along or adjacent to Atlantic 

Ocean shoreline. DPR respectfully requests that these areas be 

included in the Final PEIS and any associated documents, as 

most are not currently listed in the DPEIS.

Table 4-33 has been revised to address this request.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-95

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.09 

Additionally, DPR respectfully requests that BOEM and its 

partners conduct consultations with staff of DPR properties if 

potential adverse impacts to DPR natural/recreational 

resources, or rare species habitats are identified.

NEPA requires consultations with Federal agencies that have 

responsibility under law for certain resources or protected species. 

Specific consultations with State agencies for activities on the OCS are 

limited. The Coastal Zone Management Act and a state’s approved 

Coastal Zone Management Plan furnish the means by which a State 

exercises authority and jurisdiction over resources of concern. With 

respect to our renewable energy program, North Carolina participates on 

a task force whereby State concerns may be brought forward. 

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.10 

Div. of Marine Fisheries - The DMF has concerns regarding the 

cumulative impacts of the proposed seismic survey activities on 

blueback herring and alewife, collectively known as river 

herring. These species are depleted all along the Atlantic 

seaboard and several states have imposed harvest moratoria 

until the cause(s) of the decline can be determined. North 

Carolina enacted a moratorium on harvest of river herring in 

December 2006 and has expended significant taxpayer 

resources to both restore the stock and determine causes of the 

decline. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC) has determined that American shad are also depleted 

coastwide and is taking steps to address the decline. Adequate 

information was not provided in the PEIS to support a finding 

that there would be negligible to minor impacts on these 

species. Given that the states are working diligently to curtail 

or greatly reduce fishing harvest to enhance population 

recovery, and that river herring is a candidate for listing, any 

additional negative effects to the population should be avoided.

Additional information on the effects of seismic air gun blasts 

on, and how to avoid impacts to clupeids, sturgeon and other 

species should be obtained, included and considered in this 

PEIS.

Text has been revised in Chapters 4.2.6.1.4, 4.2.6.1.5, and 4.2.6.2.2 to 

address this comment. Appendix J has been revised to incorporate 

behavioral effects.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.11 

Seafloor disturbance associated with G & G surveys is another 

concern to DMF. There is extensive hard bottom habitat on the 

continental shelf off of NC in both state and federal waters. 

Hard bottom habitat is a critical habitat for many commercially 

and recreationally important fisheries, particularly the 

snapper/grouper complex. The document should include how 

survey activities will avoid impacting the structurally complex 

hard bottom. Towed gear, and test drilling could result in 

structural damage to hard bottom. Contamination from drilling 

discharge and fuel spills can chemically damage hard bottom.

Chapter 2.1.2.1.3.2 discusses avoidance requirements for sensitive 

benthic communities. BOEM will require site-specific information 

regarding sensitive benthic communities (including hard/live bottom 

habitat) prior to approving any G&G activities involving seafloordisturbing activities or placement of bottom-founded equipment or 

structures. All authorizations for seafloor-disturbing activities may be 

subject to restrictions to protect sensitive benthic communities. which

may include requirements for mapping and avoidance in areas where 

these communities are known or suspected, as well as pre-deployment 

photographic surveys of areas where bottom-founded instrumentation 

and appurtenances are to be deployed. The Programmatic EIS addresses 
L-96 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

potential impacts on sensitive benthic communities including impacts 

from seafloor disturbance and drilling discharges (see Chapter 

4.2.1.2.2) and accidental fuel spills (Chapter 4.2.1.2.3). Impacts on 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), including EFH for the snapper-grouper 

complex hard bottom species are addressed in Chapter 4.2.5.2.2.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.12 

The document states that temporary no vessel zones may be 

imposed around survey sites. North Carolina's coastal ocean 

supports significant commercial and recreational fisheries, 

including snapper-grouper, flounder, and shrimp. More 

specific details are needed on the location and type of activities, 

and the spatial and temporal extent of closures, to determine if 

no vessel zones would adversely affect commercial or 

recreational fishing activities.

This level of detail would be provided in the individual applications for 

surveys and coordination would occur through the CZMA process.

William Creech, 

NC Department of 

Administration, 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SA-E-3 0.13 

Compliance with recommendations off the 20 I 0 NC Coastal 

Habitat Protection Plan are mandated by the Fisheries Reform 

Act (G.S. 143B-279.8). Recommendation 3.6 states: “Ensure 

that energy development and infrastructure is designed and 

sited in a manner that minimizes negative impacts to fish 

habitat, avoids new obstructions to fish passage, and where 

possible, provides positive impacts.” The concerns raised 

above should be fully addressed in the final PEIS to satisfy this 

recommendation.

This Programmatic EIS is being prepared to address geological and 

geophysical survey activities only. Energy development and 

infrastructure design would be addressed during the NEPA analysis 

performed during leasing for development activities. This 

recommendation would be addressed at that time.

Barbara Neale, 

South Carolina 

DHEC 

SA-L-2 0.01 

There are numerous coastal resources occurring within and 

adjacent to South Carolina’s coast that could be impacted by 

the proposed survey activities subject to consistency review by 

SCDHEC-OCRM. It will be critically important that 

applicants applying to BOEM for permits to conduct survey 

activities covered by this DPEIS coordinate with 

SCDHEC-OCRM to ensure they are fully consistent with our 

State’s Coastal Management Program.

Appendix B addresses the States’ roles in consistency review.

Barbara Neale, 

South Carolina 

DHEC 

SA-L-2 0.02 

South Carolina's coastal resources are vitally important to our 

State's overall economy. Tourism and commercial and 

recreational fishing are significant coastal activities. The G&G 

survey activities described in the DPEIS could result in 

reasonable foreseeable effects on South Carolina’s coastal 

resource and uses which would initiate the consistency review 

process.

Chapter 5.7.1 of this Programmatic EIS provides a discussion of the 

CZMA and how it shall be addressed relative to G&G survey proposals.

Section 5 of Appendix B provides a discussion specific to South 

Carolina’s CZMA program.

Barbara Neale, 

South Carolina 

DHEC 

SA-L-2 0.03 

Some of the resources occurring in South Carolina’s Coastal 

Zone subject to consistency review include historic and 

culturally important sites, sea turtles, avian species, marine 

mammals, nearshore and offshore habitats which support 

Appendix B addresses the States’ roles in consistency review.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-97

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

numerous species of commercial and recreational importance to 

South Carolina.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.01 

Under the Survey Type, COST wells, the number of sampling 

events is listed as 0-3. Unless BOEM is accessing data from 

previous COST wells, the number of sampling events should be 

in the range of 10-15, as was the case for the studies conducted 

in the 1970s.

The number of COST wells used for analysis in the Programmatic EIS is 

a projected estimate based on industry interest conveyed through permit 

applications. The actual number may vary, but impacts would be 

addressed in site/permit-specific NEPA evaluations; BOEM regulations 

require an Environmental Assessment for drilling of a COST well.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.02 

The PEIS limits the number of concurrent G&G surveys and 

Alternative B addresses the issue of increasing the distance 

between concurrent surveys to limit marine biological impacts. 

Alternative B, however, does not address the issue of time 

overlap of surveys. For example, G&G surveys could be 

undertaken with a corridor of at least 25 miles between them 

but there could be a long time period during which one survey 

or the other is active. The impacts on marine life under the 

different scenarios could vary. The Draft PEIS should consider 

time separations as well as distance separations.

Although multiple applications for 2D seismic exploration surveys in the 

Atlantic Ocean have been submitted by G&G operators, BOEM expects 

that overlapping coverage (and the potential for animals to be exposed to 

multiple concurrent surveys) would be minimal because of the expense 

of conducting large-scale surveys and also because there is no 

prospective lease sale within DOI’s current Five-Year Program. BOEM 

believes that the 40-km (25-mi) spatial separation between 

simultaneously operating surveys may be a feasible approach to limiting 

the exposure of animals to the highest sound levels from multiple 

seismic surveys. BOEM will consider the value of this separation 

measure at the site-specific NEPA and environmental analyses level as 

well as any new information available at that time. This evaluation will 

also consider any potential aggregate effects from existing permitted 

surveys (if any). 

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.03 

It is significant that BOEM is not responsible for submarine 

cable infrastructure, although G&G HRG and geotechnical 

surveys related to submarine cable siting and placement may 

have the same impacts as G&G activities for purposes

identified in the Draft PEIS. This subject needs to be 

addressed. 

The comment is correct in noting that BOEM is not responsible for 

permitting submarine cable infrastructure; in general, permitting for 

submarine cables is handled by the USACE and impacts associated with 

cable siting and placement would be addressed through the USACE 

permitting process. However, for renewable energy activities, BOEM 

has accounted for G&G surveys for siting of cable right-of-ways in the 

proposed action. A cable infrastructure discussion has been added to 

Chapter 4.2.12 and cumulative impacts sections for individual resources 

have been revised to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed 

action taking into account similar activities such as submarine cable 

placement.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.04 

New Jersey’s marine habitat provides a critical calving and 

nursery area during the summer for coastal bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncates). Although proposed time-area closures 

are intended to be protective of species such as federally 

endangered right whales (Eubalena glacialis), restrictions must 

be expanded in order to mitigate for impacts to the breeding 

coastal population of bottlenose dolphins within the MidAtlantic region. According to Toth et al. (2011), neonates, 

young-of-year, and adults occur in the state’s coastal southern 

As discussed in Chapter 3.2.1, each permit application for a survey 

would be subject to a site-specific NEPA evaluation, which typically 

would be an Environmental Assessment. The impacts to marine 

mammals, including the bottlenose dolphin, would be evaluated at that 

time and additional mitigation or closures could be considered in that 

evaluation. BOEM has noted that operators will be required to satisfy

the mitigation requirements stated in this Programmatic EIS as well as 

those of other agencies having jurisdiction before an authorization will 

be issued. 
L-98 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

waters from late May through late September. Adhering to the 

proposed timing restriction of November 1 – April 30 would 

put female dolphins and their calves at risk from G&G 

activities, including airgun survey impacts, vessel and 

equipment noise, and vessel strikes.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.05 

Acoustic detections of right whale calls by Geo-Marine, Inc. 

confirmed the presence of right whales within their study area 

(within 37 km of the shoreline approx. between Seaside Park 

and Stone Harbor, NJ) during all seasons, concluding that some 

individual right whales occur in the nearshore waters off New 

Jersey either transiently or regularly. Other listed marine 

mammals were also found year round, including humpback and 

fin whales (GMI, Inc. 2010). It is assumed that this is the case 

off Delaware as well. Despite proposed timing restrictions on 

airgun surveys designed to protect right whales, individual 

whales remaining in the area may still be impacted by noise, 

boat traffic, and other projects activities.

The issues raised in this comment are addressed in the Programmatic 

EIS. Specifically, Alternative B addresses this issue by including a timearea closure consisting of a 37-km (20-nmi; 23-mi) wide zone extending 

from Delaware Bay to the southern limit of the AOI. The time-area 

closures associated with Alternative B are primarily intended to serve as 

an impact mitigation measure for individual NARWs within and adjacent 

to their designated southeast U.S. critical habitat during their calvingnursing season, and within the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs. 

These measures are not designed to protect all individual right whales 

from possible exposure to airgun noise and potential auditory effects 

level A or B harassment resulting from airgun surveys within the AOI 

during the project period. Individual right whales and other marine 

mammals, including other listed Mysticetes that may be found outside of 

proposed Alternative B time-area closure areas may avoid or be actively 

displaced from the area(s) of ensonification. Visual and possibly PAM

methods, in conjunction with operational mitigation procedures (sound 

source ramp-up and shut-down), are provided in all cases as mitigation 

to reduce potential auditory impacts to these individuals. The potential 

impacts are fully evaluated in Chapter 4.2.2. Airgun survey protocols 

have been finalized with NMFS through formal Section 7 consultation 

and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (Appendix A). We have also 

identified the review and approval process that would be utilized for 

site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.06 

Sea turtles likely use sound for navigation, predator avoiding, 

locating prey, and other activities (Piniak et al. 2012). 

Although information regarding the impacts of anthropogenic 

noise on sea turtles is somewhat lacking, there is evidence to 

suggest that observed effects due to airguns may include 

behavioral changes, as well as temporary or even permanent 

hearing loss (Moein et al. 1995). In addition, research by 

Piniak et al. (2012) suggests that sea turtles are able to hear 

much of the pervasive low frequency and high intensity noise 

in the ocean, including sonar, shipping and oil and gas 

exploration.

The issues raised in this comment are addressed in the Programmatic 

EIS. The additional reference (Dow Piniak et al., 2012) has been 

reviewed and considered in the analysis. A brief overview of sea turtle 

hearing is presented in Chapter 4.2.3.1.6. A more detailed description 

is provided in Appendix I. Potential effects of anthropogenic sound on 

sea turtles are discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-99

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.07 

Leatherback turtles. Turtles are known to be present in these 

locations between the months of May through September. The 

current timing restriction would therefore be placing turtles at 

risk of behavioral changes and possibly hearing loss due to 

airgun noise. Also, even having observers on board vessels 

during appropriate seasons will not eliminate the potential of 

injury or mortality from ship strikes.

The current timing restrictions are intended to address concerns for the 

NARW and the heavy concentration of nesting turtles in Florida. BOEM 

recognizes that sea turtles may occur throughout the area of interest and 

that the proposed surveys may affect them; potential impacts are 

addressed in the Programmatic EIS (see Chapter 4.2.3.2.2). The survey 

protocols, which include the measures mentioned, and which are fully 

described in Appendix C, have been shown to be effective in 

minimizing potential impacts through many years of implementation in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Airgun and HRG Survey Protocols have been 

finalized with NMFS through formal Section 7 consultation and the 

issuance of a Biological Opinion (Appendix A). All authorizations for 

non airgun HRG surveys would include requirements for visual 

monitoring of a vessel strike exclusion zones by visual observers. In 

addition, authorizations for all HRG surveys using sound sources 

operating at frequencies below 200 kHz would include but not be limited 

to monitoring of an acoustic exclusion zone by PSOs and startup and 

shutdown requirements. Please refer to Chapter 2 and Appendix C for 

detailed survey protocols. We have also identified the review and 

approval process that would be utilized for site/permit-specific activities 

in Chapter 1.7.5.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.08 

Noise generated from airguns has been shown to alter the 

behavior of captive fishes, with an increase in alarm response 

as noise level was increased (Fewtrell and McCauley 2012). In 

addition, activities such as pile driving have the potential to 

impact fish survival with effects such as burst swim bladder 

and massive internal bleeding (Halverson et al. 2011).

The airgun issues raised in this comment are addressed in the 

Programmatic EIS (see Appendix J for discussion of the effects of 

sound on fish). However, pile driving is not part of the proposed action. 

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.09 

In April 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the 

New York Bight distinct population segment of Atlantic 

sturgeon, which includes fish from New Jersey waters, as 

Federally Endangered. Further, a recent status assessment 

conducted by the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 

resulted in a recommended state status of Endangered. Recent 

tracking data estimate the Delaware River spawning population 

to be fewer than 100 individuals.

Chapters 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.3.6, and 4.4.6 have been revised to address this 

comment. 

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.10 

In New Jersey, Atlantic Sturgeon occur along the coast, with 

some individuals spawning in the lower portion of the 

Delaware River. If impacts from air gun noise and other 

project activities disturb Atlantic Sturgeon migrating into 

Delaware Bay for spawning in the river, and entire year class 

could potentially be lost, accelerating the decline of an already 

diminishing river stock. In addition, Atlantic Sturgeon are 

The Programmatic EIS thoroughly evaluates potential impacts on 

Atlantic sturgeon (Chapter 4.2.6.1.3) and shortnose sturgeon (Chapter 

4.2.6.1.2). The analysis included active acoustic sound sources, vessel 

and equipment noise, vessel traffic, trash and debris, seafloor 

disturbance, drilling discharges, and accidental fuels spills. In addition, 

BOEM has consulted with NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act to ensure that the proposed action would not jeopardize the 
L-100 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

vulnerable to injury and mortality from ship strikes, especially 

in the Delaware River. It is possible that increased traffic 

coupled with behavioral changes due to G&G survey activities 

may place Atlantic sturgeon at increased risk from ship strikes. 

Activities such as bottom sampling, drilling of test wells, and 

placement of equipment/structures on the sea floor could also 

potentially impact this demersal species, along with Shortnose 

sturgeon (federally endangered), that on occasion migrate into 

ocean waters.

continued existence of the Atlantic sturgeon (critical habitat has not been 

designated for either species). NMFS determined the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The 

Biological Opinion is presented in Appendix A. 

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.11 

Although the PEIS study area is south of NJ waters (starting at 

the southern boundary of the NJ OWPEBS area), there could 

potentially be residual effects on transient/migratory species 

impacted in those areas that subsequently pass through or 

overwinter in NJ waters. Some of the exploratory activities, 

whether acoustic or drilling (e.g., disturbance to benthic 

habitats, increased turbidity, loss of prey, oil leaks, etc.), may 

cause migratory species to alter their movements, thus 

impacting species activities in NJ waters. Effects may be 

temporary or permanent, depending on the size and duration of 

the disturbance.

Chapter 4.2.5.1.1 has been revised to address this comment. 

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.12 

The PEIS lists some of the mitigation measures and other 

ecological/species considerations that will be used during G&G 

deployments. However, NJ has concerns with the use of the air 

gun seismic technology and acoustic-induced impacts, 

specifically whether the mitigation measures identified will 

adequately protect species within the vicinity of these 

deployments.

Appendix C of this Programmatic EIS addresses mitigation 

effectiveness.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.13 

BOEM is to be commended for the depth of their species 

distribution analysis, as shown in numerous figures showing 

species hot spots along the entire eastern seaboard.

Comment noted.

Jaclyn Davies, 

State of 

New Jersey

SA-E-5 0.14 

Concerning future studies, if these or similar activities were to 

take place within or near NJ waters, New Jersey asks that NJ’s 

Ocean/Wind Power Ecological Baseline Studies data and 

results be thoroughly consulted and considered first, and added 

to information regarding affected species along the Atlantic 

coast, before proceeding with survey and other associated G&G 

exploration activities.

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-101

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Evie Christopher, 

Virginia 

Department of 

Mines, Minerals 

and Energy

SA-E-1 0.01 

Proceed with Alternative A, the Proposed Action, as being the 

least restrictive of the three alternatives presented in the DEIS, 

and the most supportive of developing all of Virginia’s 

available energy resources.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.01 

Coordinate G&G exploration activities with the commercial 

and recreational fishing industries to include public outreach on 

any temporary area closures and other anticipated impacts to 

mitigate any unforeseen or unnecessary economic hardships to 

the fisheries industries.

As indicated in Chapter 3.5.1.5, prior to conducting a G&G 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. Experience in the Gulf of 

Mexico indicates that G&G surveys can be conducted safely without 

causing significant interruption of fishing activities or economic 

hardship to the fishing industry.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.02 

Consider time-of-year restrictions in near-shore waters for 

activities that would affect known spawning migrations of 

anadromous or catadromous fish species.

The Programmatic EIS did not identify any significant impacts to 

anadromous or catadromous fishes that would warrant time of year 

restrictions. Temporal or spatial restrictions or other mitigation 

measures could be required for individual surveys if the site/permitspecific NEPA analysis for that project indicated the potential for 

significant impacts to fish resources.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.03 

Continue to research potential G&G exploration impacts on 

marine mammals, sea turtles and marine/coastal birds and 

avoid and minimize impacts to the extent practical.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.04 

DGIF finds that the PEIS addresses the primary issues with 

respect to fisheries resources that the agency commented on 

during the PEIS scoping process in 2010 and presents a 

reasonable assessment of those concerns.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.05 

The use of seismic air guns could do unforeseen harm to a 

spawning run of adult female sturgeon, or any Alosine species 

(e.g. American shad, alewife and blueback herring), preparing 

to migrate into the Chesapeake Bay, and also to any young or 

mature adults returning to the ocean after their spawning 

migrations are complete.

Chapter 4.2.6.2.2 has been revised to address this issue. 

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.06 

Biological impacts by seismic air-guns to burrowed 

overwintering blue crabs in the lower Chesapeake Bay, near the 

territorial sea, should be considered as this stock is still 

recovering from a near-collapse of the Chesapeake Bay stock in 

2008.

The Chesapeake Bay is outside the AOI, and no seismic air gun surveys 

would occur in the Bay. Moreover, based on the invertebrate studies 

reviewed in Appendix J, seismic surveys are not expected to cause 

significant short-term or long-term effects on crabs.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.07 

DGIF finds that the PEIS addresses the primary issues with 

respect to marine mammals that the agency commented on 

during the PEIS scoping process in 2010 and presents a 

reasonable assessment of those concerns.

Comment noted.
L-102 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.08 

DGIF finds that the PEIS addresses the primary issues with 

respect to sea turtles that the agency commented on during the 

PEIS scoping process in 2010 and presents a reasonable 

assessment of those concerns.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.09 

DGIF finds that the PEIS addresses the primary issues with 

respect to marine and costal birds that the agency commented 

on during the PEIS scoping process in 2010 and presents a 

reasonable assessment of those concerns.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.10 

DGIF finds that the PEIS addresses the primary issues with 

respect to marine protected areas that the agency commented 

on during the PEIS scoping process in 2010 and presents a 

reasonable assessment of those concerns.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.11 

VDACS reviewed and compared statements in the PEIS 

concerning endangered species with available information. 

VDACS finds that no additional comments are necessary in 

reference to endangered plant and insect species with regard to 

G&G activities.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.12 OCR finds that the current activity will not affect any documented state-listed plants or insects.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.13 

Provided any necessary State VWPP permits are obtained and 

complied with for excavation, dredging, fill, or other regulated 

activities in state waters, the proposed activities should be 

consistent with VWPP regulations.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.14 

According to the VMRC, encroachments in, on or over stateowned submerged land within Virginia's territorial sea 

associated with any infrastructure, such as pipelines, for 

projects on the OCS will require permits from the Virginia 

Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) pursuant to Chapter 

12 of Title 2B.2 of the Code of Virginia. The Subaqueous 

Minerals Management Plan (SSMMP), which is a part of the 

State Minerals Management Plan (SMMP), 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.

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.6.18 to address this comment.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.15 

DEQ did not indicate that G&G activities would have a 

significant impact on air quality programs under its 

jurisdiction.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.16 DEQ finds that solid and hazardous waste issues were generally addressed in the PEIS. Specifically the report identifies vessel 

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-103

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

wastes, which would include trash and debris, and sanitary and 

domestic wastes.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.17 

DEQ encourages all construction projects and facilities to 

implement pollution prevention principles, including the 

reduction, reuse, and recycling of all solid wastes generated. 

All generation of hazardous wastes should be minimized and 

handled appropriately.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.18 

According to DHR, BOEM must consult directly with the 

agency with regard to potential impacts to historic properties 

pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act and its implementing regulation at 36 CFR part 800.

Consultation requirements under NHPA are addressed in Chapter 5.7.5.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.19 

The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) 

staff reviewed the PEIS for G&G activities on the OCS and 

finds that the proposed activities appear to be consistent with 

local and regional plans and policies.

Comment noted.

Richard Weeks, 

Virginia DEQ SA-L-1 0.20 

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 

amended, federal activities affecting Virginia’s coastal 

resources or coastal uses (e.g., OCS lease sales, renewable 

energy competitive lease sales, and marine minerals negotiated 

competitive agreements) must be consistent, to the maximum 

extent practicable, with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management 

Program (VCP) (see section 307(c)(1) of the Act and Federal 

Consistency Regulations, 15 CFR part 930, subpart C, section 

930.32).

Appendix B addresses the States’ roles in consistency review.

Ron Villanueva, 

Virginia House of 

Delegates

SAPHN-2 0.01 

Support geological and geophysical study activities off the 

coast of Virginia and other regions of the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS)

Comment noted.

Ron Villanueva, 

Virginia House of 

Delegates

SAPHN-2 0.02 

We know there is oil and natural gas in the Atlantic OCS, but 

we don't know how much. The program being considered by 

your agency through this hearing today, and others along the 

east coast can provide our nation with important information.

Comment noted.

Ron Villanueva, 

Virginia House of 

Delegates

SAPHN-2 0.03 

Virginia, and particularly the Hampton Roads area, could see a 

related and significant growth in jobs and revenue. This region 

is ideally located and has existing infrastructure to support such 

development.

Comment noted.

Ron Villanueva, 

Virginia House of 

Delegates

SAPHN-2 0.04 

As for the seismic surveys that are the focus of the hearing 

today, the protection of marine life off Virginia’s coastline is 

very important and marine wildlife will be safeguarded through 

the survey process. State-of-the-art seismic survey techniques 

are carefully regulated and reliable. The permits you may issue 

to conduct such work will demand environmental protection.

Comment noted.
L-104 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ron Villanueva, 

Virginia House of 

Delegates

SAPHN-2 0.05 

We need as much information as possible about Atlantic OCS 

energy reserves so we can make intelligent decisions about our 

nation's energy future. New seismic surveys are a key to those 

decisions and I urge you to move forward in that process.

Comment noted.

Ron Villanueva, 

Virginia House of 

Delegates

SAPHN-2 0.06 

The collection of seismic data alone will not be enough to tell 

us what resources may lie off the Virginia coast. Plans for a 

Virginia lease sale have been rejected, and there is no plan to 

reconsider that until 2017 at the earliest. Without a lease sale, 

seismic companies have little incentive to gather new data since 

there are no potential customers for that information.

Comment noted.

Doug Domenech, 

Virginia Secretary 

of Natural 

Resources

SAPHN-1 0.01 

Governor McDonnell is a strong advocate on behalf of an “all 

of the above” energy security strategy.

Comment noted.

Doug Domenech, 

Virginia Secretary 

of Natural 

Resources

SAPHN-1 0.02 

The Governor continues in his strong support for exploration 

and development of oil and natural gas resources off the coast 

of Virginia.·

Comment noted.

Doug Domenech, 

Virginia Secretary 

of Natural 

Resources

SAPHN-1 0.03 

While we are glad the draft PEIS for G&G has been prepared, 

the Commonwealth again must reiterate our strong 

disappointment that the Administration has decided to keep 

Virginia out of the next five-year plan for 2012 to 2017.

Comment noted.

Doug Domenech,

Virginia Secretary 

of Natural 

Resources

SAPHN-1 0.04 

We urge the Administration to amend the 2012-2017 OCS fiveyear plan to allow for an oil and gas lease sale off Virginia in 

this cycle.· The Governor is equally interested in moving 

forward with siting for offshore wind, energy as well.·

Comment noted.

Doug Domenech, 

Virginia Secretary 

of Natural 

Resources

SAPHN-1 0.05 

Eighty percent of Virginia’s voters favor expanded offshore 

energy development, and our elected officials at all levels 

support development on a bipartisan basis.·

Comment noted.

Local Agency Representatives (sorted by Agency)

Meg Crumpler on 

behalf of Mayor of 

the City of 

Charleston

LA-E-2 0.01 

I encourage BOEM to adopt Alternative C- the no action 

alternative- in its programmatic environmental impact 

statement.

Comment noted.

Meg Crumpler on 

behalf of Mayor of 

the City of 

Charleston 

LA-E-2 0.02 

Offshore geological and geophysical (G & G) activities and 

eventual drilling can be harmful to the marine and coastal 

environment and thus would be inconsistent with our stated 

priority of maintaining our coastal resources.

Chapter 5.7.1 of the Programmatic EIS explains the process by which 

coastal States (including South Carolina) would have an opportunity to 

review permits and license activities to determine whether they will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with the State’s Coastal Management 

Program. Further information is provided in Appendix B.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-105

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Meg Crumpler on 

behalf of Mayor of 

the City of 

Charleston 

LA-E-2 0.03 

Acoustic pollution caused by oil and gas G & G activities such 

as the use of air guns, aeromagnetic surveys, and the drilling of 

test wells has proven associations with major impacts to marine 

mammals, turtles, and fish .

Potential acoustic impacts have been evaluated in the Programmatic EIS 

in Chapter 4.2.2 (Marine Mammals), 4.2.3 (Sea Turtles), 4.2.5

(Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat), and 4.2.6 (Threatened 

and Endangered Fish Species). Please refer to these chapters for 

additional detail.

Meg Crumpler on 

behalf of Mayor of 

the City of 

Charleston

LA-E-2 0.04 

Given that we would not support eventual commercial oil or 

gas drilling off our coast following the exploration process, 

surveying activities would be a wasteful investment of time,

money, and energy.

Comment noted.

Brian Pennington, 

City of Norfolk

LAPHN-1 0.01 

We understand that there has not been any geological or 

geophysical studies off the coast of Virginia since the 1970s.·

And we feel it makes a lot of sense to better understand what 

resources may actually be available.· Technology has greatly 

improved since the 1970s, as we feel we might not have all of 

the most accurate facts about what is contemplated out on the 

shoreline.

Comment noted.

Brian Pennington, 

City of Norfolk

LAPHN-1 0.02 

We believe informed decisions are best decisions so Norfolk 

supports the proposed geological and geophysical studies 

contemplated in the referenced program in the EIS.

Comment noted.

Robert Matthias, 

City of Virginia 

Beach

LAPHN-2 0.01 

The city of Virginia Beach has committed to energy 

development off the coast of Virginia.· We, therefore, are 

completely in support of the proposed geological and 

geophysical studies are needed before either offshore wind 

energy can take place or offshore oil and gas development can 

move forward.

Comment noted.

Robert Matthias, 

City of Virginia 

Beach

LAPHN-2 0.02 

We believe large scale wind development can happen off the 

coast with little to no environmental impact.·

Comment noted.

Robert Matthias, 

City of Virginia 

Beach

LAPHN-2 0.03 

And as for offshore oil and gas development, it will take place 

close to 50 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach, at least by 

2020, the Council when adopting the Alternative Energy Task 

Force Report added a caveat, that it should be done to the safest 

extent possible and have no detrimental effect on the operations 

of the United States Department of Defense, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration or Wallops Island, 

which hopes to develop a growing space exploration and 

launch site.

Comment noted.

Robert Matthias, 

City of Virginia 

Beach

LAPHN-2 0.04 

I will also add we are also very interested in minerals.· We put 

a lot of sand in our beach over the years, and we actually have 

quite a bit of information that we’ve gathered between the 

Corps and Virginia Institute Marine Science.· We would be 

Comment noted.
L-106 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

happy to share with you on mineral resources, primarily sand 

within five miles of the coast.

Jan Brewer, St. 

John's County 

Florida 

LA-E-1 0.01 

I would first like to address the process. As I understand the 

EIS was opened for review on March 30. 2012 a public 

meeting for this region was held on April 16.2012 and the 

comment period is scheduled to end May 30, 2012. For a local 

government this timeframe is entirely too brief to allow a 

comprehensive review of the complex and lengthy reports and 

data associated with this EIS and then allow time to provide a 

briefing to and gain direction from the County Administration 

and local elected officials. As well. I attended the meeting held 

on April 16th and several individuals raised additional 

questions concerning this EIS. To date. I have not found where 

BOEM has addressed those comments. Therefore my first 

request is to allow an extension of time for a review and 

comment period for at least an additional 45 days.

The comment period was extended 30 days to provide additional time for 

review and comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS.

Jan Brewer, St. 

John's County 

Florida 

LA-E-1 0.02 

Royalties from gas/oil wells in the gulf are shared with adjacent 

States/Counties. There is no provision in federal law that 

requires royalties gained in the Atlantic Ocean be shared with 

adjacent States/Counties. This should be addressed prior to any 

lease issuance.

A lease sale is not part of the proposed action for this Programmatic EIS 

and therefore the issue of royalty sharing with states is premature. 

However, Section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act refers to shared bonuses, 

rents and royalties. This provision is found in 43 U.S.C. § 1337 and 

provides that 27% of the OCS revenues from leases within three miles of 

the seaward boundary of a coastal State must be shared with that coastal 

State. These provisions apply to all coastal States including those on the 

Atlantic.

Jan Brewer, St. 

John's County 

Florida 

LA-E-1 0.03 

Chapter 377. “Florida Statutes, prohibits structures for drilling 

in Florida territorial seas (shore to three geographic miles). 

The EIS reads that the Area of Interest is from, the shoreline to 

350 nautical miles from shore”. Please address how Florida 

law will not be compromised.

Chapter 377.24(9), Florida Statutes specifically states that “no permit to 

drill a well in search of oil or gas shall be granted... within the 

boundaries of Florida’s territorial seas as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301.” 

The proposed action evaluated in the Programmatic EIS does not include 

drilling of wells in search of oil or gas. Drilling of stratigraphic test 

wells may occur as discussed in Chapter 3.2.2.4, but these wells would 

be drilled to obtain information about regional stratigraphy and are most 

likely to be sited in deep, offshore areas such as the Blake Plateau. In 

any case, BOEM’s authority is limited to OCS waters; the Agency 

cannot authorize drilling in Florida territorial waters.

Jan Brewer, St. 

John's County 

Florida 

LA-E-1 0.04 

The EIS failed to disclose the financial impacts to adjacent 

States/Counties for the potential mass stranding of impacted or 

dead marine mammals on County beaches. For example 

looking at just dolphin the EIS reports that potentially one 

million dolphin may be acoustically impacted and it is a real 

possibility that impacted animals could end up on the County 

beach requiring removal. A funding source needs to be 

Based upon records from areas that have experienced years of G&G 

activities, such as the Gulf of Mexico, mass strandings of cetaceans are 

not expected. The numbers referred to in this comment are estimates of 

the number of Level B harassment “takes” (behavioral disturbances) 

over the entire project period. These are not expected to result in any 

deaths or strandings of marine mammals. In addition, mitigation 

methods will be used before and during surveys to reduce potential 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-107

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

identified and details provided in the EIS to address this issue 

and funding needs to be guaranteed to adjacent States/Counties.

impacts from seismic noise to marine mammals.

Jan Brewer, St. 

John's County 

Florida 

LA-E-1 0.05 

The invasive seismic survey procedure of blasting pulsating 

shocks of noise loud enough to penetrate deep into the sea bed 

and across vast ocean areas to search for possible oil and gas 

reserves would detrimentally impact marine habitat and 

potentially destabilize marine ecosystems. As an example the 

EIS reads the loud blasting and repeated sound waves from this 

process can cause temporary or permanent hearing impairment 

and loss serious injury from tissue trauma and hemorrhaging or 

even death for dolphins fish whales and sea turtles. This level 

of detrimental impact on the marine environment is 

unacceptable. As well the EIS was drafted only to address the 

exploratory survey activities and this is seen as a shortsighted 

approach. The EIS failed to disclose the financial impacts to 

adjacent States/Counties for the potential impacts to marine 

habitat, potential destabilization of marine ecosystems oil spills 

or mass oil release from future drilling and thus needs to be 

addressed.

The referenced impacts are fully evaluated in Chapter 4.0 of the 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM has cooperated with NMFS during the 

preparation of the Programmatic EIS to ensure that resources under its 

jurisdiction would be adequately protected. BOEM has concluded its 

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act with NMFS 

and FWS to ensure that the proposed action would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. The scope of the Programmatic EIS does not include oil 

and gas leasing or possible future drilling of oil and gas wells. If 

Congress directs BOEM to assess the impacts from opening the area of 

interest to oil and gas lease sales the issue raised would be addressed at 

that time in a separate NEPA evaluation. 

Jan Brewer, St. 

John's County 

Florida 

LA-E-1 0.06 

Obviously the next activity will be oil drilling. NOAA responds 

to as many as 150 oil spills every year as stated on their 

website. This demonstrates the potential for the County beaches 

to become impacted by this activity. This would greatly affect 

the County's economy which is largely based on tourism and on 

both recreational and commercial fishing. Provisions should be 

made now to address the monetary impacts to the County if oil 

wells are drilled offshore.

The Programmatic EIS does not include drilling of oil wells. If Congress 

directs BOEM to assess the impacts from opening the area of interest to 

oil and gas lease sales the issue raised would be addressed at that time in 

a separate NEPA evaluation.

Jan Brewer, St. 

John's County 

Florida 

LA-E-1 0.07 

Finally, the County requests adequate descriptions, objectives, 

and schedules for all activities associated with a project: 

specific information on the natural resources potentially 

affected by the proposed activities: and specific information on 

onshore support base, support vessels, shallow hazards oil-spill 

response, wastes and discharges transportation activities and air 

emissions.

The NEPA evaluations for site-specific permit applications will provide 

the description, objectives, and schedule or each survey planned as well 

as the impacts from the activities and this information would need to be 

coordinated between the State and county. 

Industry Representatives (sorted by Organization)

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.01 

We recommend that BOEM provide another alternative without 

closure areas prior to issuance of the final PEIS. We strongly 

encourage that both the range of alternatives analyzed and their 

evaluation reflect the nature and extent of the known causes of 

injury and mortality faced by various protected species. In 

addition, for the reasons explained further in these comments, 

An alternative that does not include the closure area for the NARW was 

not evaluated because BOEM and NMFS do not consider it to be 

reasonable. Allowing seismic airgun surveys to be conducted within the 

right whale critical habitat, SMAs, or DMAs during the times when these 

whales are present, including calves and nursing mothers, would not be 

prudent based on the endangered status of these whales. BOEM believes 
L-108 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

we oppose as unwarranted several of the mitigation measures 

proposed as part of Alternative A. Further, we believe that 

Alternative B is unwarranted for a number of reasons including 

the finding in the DPEIS that doubling the size of the closure 

area does not provide additional protection for right whales or 

marine life generally.

that Alternative B does provide additional protection for right whales by 

expanding the closure to include a 20-nmi (37-km; 23-mi) corridor all 

along the coast from Florida to the northern boundary of the AOI. As 

stated in Chapter 4.3.2.1.1, it is estimated that the expanded time-area 

closure would avoid approximately 80% 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 % of the right whale incidental takes. Please 

see response I-E-10:0.04.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.02 

The approach to High Resolution Geophysical activities would 

be improved if the DPEIS recognized that this type of survey 

equipment is also used by many other sectors not identified in 

the DPEIS. The DPEIS should explain why a wide range of 

sectors can use these technologies during certain times and in 

locations where the oil and natural gas E&P industry could not. 

Since the environmental consequences of a survey tool‘s use do 

not vary by who is using it, there is no apparent basis for this 

discriminatory treatment, particularly if it shows lack of effect. 

Industry would note that a wide range of marine users, 

including scientific researchers, routinely apply one or more of 

these or similar tools.

BOEM is only responsible for authorizing G&G surveys under its 

jurisdiction. Chapter 3.0 of the Programmatic EIS has been revised to 

indicate that 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. The 

mitigation requirements were developed based on the impacts identified 

and quantified in the impact analysis in Chapter 4.0, supported by 

acoustic and incidental take modeling in Appendices D and E as well as 

the results of newly published sound source verification modeling 

(Zykov and Mac Donnell, 2013; Martin et al., 2012). Mitigation 

measures are not specific to a program area, but are based on equipment 

type, acoustic source levels, and the nature of the operations, which 

include location and duration. Mitigation measures for different nonairgun HRG acoustic sources also differ; acoustic exclusion zone 

monitoring and shutdown do not universally apply to all non-airgun 

HRG surveys. In addition, since the release of the Draft Programmatic 

EIS, the HRG Survey Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case 

language has been removed. Chapter 2 and Appendix C have been 

revised to reflect the clarified HRG Survey Protocol. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.03 

The DPEIS also proposes to require unprecedented observation 

and shut-down zone requirements for HRG but does not 

provide necessary environmental impact information that 

would indicate adverse effects of a nature to warrant requiring 

such zones. The shut-down requirements are in industry‘s 

opinion, not warranted, scientifically substantiated nor feasible 

in many circumstances, including but not limited to, HRG 

activities conducted by Autonomous Underwater Vehicles 

(AUVs) that collect data only a few feet above the sea bed.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. Mitigation measures for non airgun HRG acoustic sources 

differ according to source, acoustic exclusion zone monitoring, and 

shutdown do not universally apply to all non airgun HRG surveys. In 

addition, with the clarification of the HRG Survey Protocol, the NARW

time-area closures do not apply to many non airgun HRG sources. 

Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated survey 

protocols. BOEM has attempted to better draw the distinction between 

these activities throughout the EIS. For example, revised Seismic 

Airgun Survey Protocol can be found in Chapter 2.1.3.1 and the HRG 

Survey Protocol can be found in Chapter 2.1.3.2, with an expanded 

discussion in Appendix C. We disagree that the Draft Programmatic 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-109

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

EIS does not report a basis for potentially adverse effects to establish 

exclusion zones. The exclusion zones that have been calculated in 

Appendix D for HRG-type tools are consistent with existing guidance 

from NMFS for acoustic propagation modeling and the hearing 

thresholds they recognize for incidental take. Since the Draft 

Programmatic EIS was released additional sound source verification 

monitoring studies have been conducted and published (Zykov and Mac 

Donnell, 2013; Martin et al., 2012). The results of these studies were 

applied to clarifying the HRG Survey Protocol. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.04 

The DPEIS does a better job than some other recent NEPA 

documents in discussing acoustic impact analysis. However, 

the PEIS should contain agency explanations of all the steps, 

choices and assumptions that were made in impact 

determinations. The effects of these choices are not adequately 

disclosed nor discussed in the environmental consequences 

assessment. In the end, industry believes that the DPEIS 1) 

does not employ the best available science, 2) grossly 

overestimates the number of Level A and Level B takes, and 3) 

that these overestimations lead to incorrect choices in the 

Alternatives presented and the mitigation measures proposed.

The Programmatic EIS provides a very detailed description for the entire 

process used in assessing impacts from the proposed action.

Chapter 3.0 contains a detailed summary of G&G activities, including 

Chapter 3.5 which provides the projected activity scenario for each of 

the three programs and a description of each impact-producing factor 

used in the analysis. Chapter 4.0 takes the reader through a detailed 

description for each step in the impact assessment process beginning 

with a screening of potentially impacted resources, followed by an 

analysis of impact levels and impact significance criteria, leading to an 

analysis of impact-producing factors. Appendices D and E are included 

to provide more in-depth discussion and analysis of a number of 

important topics such as acoustic modeling and incidental take 

methodology. The Jasco acoustic propagation model was considered to 

be one of the best and most appropriate models for G&G acoustic 

propagation modeling and the Acoustic Integration Model has been 

peer-reviewed under the CREM guidelines and therefore is considered 

one of the best options for estimating marine mammal takes under the 

guidance of NMFS and their MMPA regulatory authority. The Level A 

and Level B take estimates included in the Programmatic EIS were 

developed based on a proposed survey level of effort and provided as a 

tool for evaluating impact levels. We believe they are reasonable based 

on the activity scenario and the modeling results presented in the 

Programmatic EIS. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.05 

The DPEIS would be improved by placing hypothetical seismic 

survey risks in a context relative to the significant known risks. 

So doing, for example, would note that the speeds of working 

seismic survey vessels are less than half of the current 

regulatory limit of 10 knots. Industry believes that the 

evaluation of the need for closure areas would be different if 

this analysis were conducted.

The slow speed of seismic vessels is noted in the impact evaluations in 

Chapter 4.0 (e.g., when evaluating the potential for vessel strikes on 

marine mammals and sea turtles). The identified vessel speeds under the 

Vessel Strike Avoidance measures are applicable to all survey vessels 

regardless of size during transit when vessels are within critical habitat 

areas, SMAs, and DMAs, the speed is not related to survey operations 

when vessel speeds would be below 10 kn. Although the closure areas 

include the right whale critical habitat areas, SMAs, and DMAs where 

vessel speeds are limited by NOAA's vessel strike reduction rule 
L-110 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

(50 CFR § 224.105), the potential for vessel strikes was not the main 

reason for proposing the closures; rather, they were based on potential 

impacts from acoustic sources. The Programmatic EIS must still 

consider hypothetical risks due to the fact that the North Atlantic coast 

has not had large scale G&G surveys for over 30 years. Risks and 

effects to the species, such as the endangered NARW, can only be 

estimated and due to the sensitive nature of the species, protection must 

be planned. We believe that the time-area closures in the critical habitat 

and SMAs for the NARW are reasonable because of the endangered 

status of this species and the importance of these areas to their life cycle.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.06 

Moreover, the size of the proposed closure areas is premised 

upon defining areas of habitat critical for life function that 

includes not only breeding and foraging, but also migration 

pathways. These three components comprise the totality of 

activities for these animals rather than critical habitat. The 

critical habitat designation for North Atlantic right whales 

determined in 1994 considered but rejected migration routes as 

inconsistent with the ESA approach to critical habitat. 

Although there is a petition to revise critical habitat, no 

decision has been made. BOEM should clearly state on what 

basis and under what authority it proposes to regulate using 

migration pathways. Industry does not agree that such 

regulation is permissible.

The NARW is an endangered species. The entire life cycle of their 

activity is subject to intervention if possible takes could occur by 

permitted Federal activity. We do not propose to regulate using 

migration pathways. We do propose to emplace reasonable and prudent 

protective measures consistent with the status of this species under the 

ESA. The migratory pathway is not being protected as critical habitat 

and that needs to be noted. It can be considered a SMA and this 

mitigation measure was developed in conjunction with NMFS to ensure 

added protection to this endangered species. We recognize the coastal 

zone as important for the transiting of these animals between their 

recognized critical habitat areas in the North and South Atlantic.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.07 

If we consider one specific proposed mitigation, the shutdown 

requirement, to demonstrate just how impactful the incorrect 

analysis and selection of alternatives and mitigation measures 

can be, we believe it to be so great as to cast into doubt the very 

feasibility of conducting seismic activities. The proposed 

mitigation measures are designed to respond to and mitigate 

projected Type A and Type B takes. But because the DPEIS 

greatly overstates the number of Type A and Type B takes and 

exclusion zones for potential takes it greatly overstates the risk 

and extent for reasonable mitigation measures. This is of 

critical importance, because, based on predictions, some of the 

proposed mitigation measures would impose potentially high 

costs, greatly impede or altogether preclude the conduct of 

seismic surveys and geohazard and cultural resource 

identification, and deeply frustrate the achievement of the goals 

of the OCS Lands Act. The practical consequences of the 

proposed changes for the conduct of seismic surveying are 

enormous. We are highly doubtful that seismic survey 

BOEM and NMFS appreciate the comment and are committed to 

ensuring that mitigation requirements are feasible. The Programmatic 

EIS has been revised to clarify the shutdown requirements for 

delphinids. Specifically, Appendix C, Sections 3.2.2.5 and 3.3.3

indicate that “shutdown would not be required for dolphins approaching 

the vessel (or vessel’s towed equipment) that indicates a “voluntary 

approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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.” Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS the HRG

Survey Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has 

been removed. Mitigation measures for different non airgun HRG 

acoustic sources also differ and acoustic exclusion zone monitoring, and

shutdown does not universally apply to all non airgun HRG surveys. In 

addition with the clarification of the HRG Survey Protocol, NARW

time-area closures do not apply to many non airgun HRG sources. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-111

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

operations could even be attempted were shutdowns to be 

required with anything approaching the frequency estimated in 

the DPEIS.

Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated survey 

protocols. In November 2012, BOEM and NMFS sponsored a Mitigation 

and Monitoring Workshop for the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in Herndon, 

Virginia. This workshop involved multiple stakeholders, including other 

Federal agencies, industry, academia, and NGOs. While the workshop 

focused on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the 

incidental take authorization process specific to G&G activities in the 

GOM the goal of the workshop was to seek individual expert input from 

stakeholders to develop “an appropriate suite of effective and practicable 

mitigations” and to develop “a comprehensive monitoring plan that 

[would] enable stakeholders to answer questions regarding marine 

mammals, the effects of industry activities, and the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures.” BOEM and NMFS will be utilizing an adaptive 

management process in this EIS which can be applied towards 

monitoring and mitigation measures. Many of the mitigation measures 

outlined in the draft EIS and clarified in the Final Programmatic EIS, are 

measures that are currently successfully implemented by geophysical 

operators in the Gulf of Mexico. BOEM has used the existing guidance 

as a starting point for the types of permit conditions that could be 

expected in the Atlantic. BOEM also acknowledges that differences 

exist in the Atlantic and GOM; the composition of species and the northsouth migrations that are a feature of the Atlantic Basin are not a feature 

of the GOM. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.08 

To build its case that seismic does have significant adverse 

effects, BOEM relies on models that have not been validated 

against field data to create unrealistic estimates of incidental 

takes. Further, the estimate of the number of takes is only 

achievable by using acoustic threshold criteria based on 

15-year old obsolete data that does not meet the NEPA 

requirement to use the best available science. In addition, in 

the face of no observable injury/mortality data and no 

population level behavioral effect, the DPEIS demands more 

and more unreasonable mitigation measures, including 

six-month area closures and the addition of dolphins (who at 

times intentionally approach seismic vessels) to the list of 

animals that require operations to shut down. Not only is there 

little to no basis for these demands, the DPEIS will require the 

conventional energy industry to comply with operational 

mitigations that industries having known causes of cetacean 

mortality do not. In so doing, the agency decision-making is 

not only impossible to justify but also discriminatory.

The Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) used to calculate the take 

estimates incorporates acoustic propagation models that have been 

extensively tested against field measurements. In addition, the AIM 

model has undergone external peer review by NOAA’s Center for 

Independent Experts (CIE) to document that it meets the Council for 

Regulatory Monitoring (CREM) guidelines for model development and 

evaluation. The acoustic exposures and resulting take estimates utilized 

the 160 dB RMS criterion for potential behavioral reactions (MMPA 

Level B incidental harassment) and the 180/190 dB rms criteria for 

cetaceans/pinnipeds, respectively, that are currently accepted by NMFS. 

The Programmatic EIS also presents injury calculations using the 

Southall criteria, which were developed in 2007 and remain the best 

available science based on our updated literature review in Appendix H. 

However, we cannot use the Southall criteria as the basis for take 

estimates because they have not been adopted by NMFS. We believe 

that the time-area closures in the critical habitat and SMAs for the 

NARW, and DMAs are reasonable because of the endangered status of 

this species and the importance of these areas to their life cycle. Our 
L-112 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

mitigation is not limited to activities that may cause cetacean mortality. 

The Programmatic EIS has been revised to clarify the shutdown 

requirements for delphinids. Specifically, Appendix C, Sections 3.2.2.5

and 3.3.3 indicate that “shutdown would not be required for delphinids 

approaching the vessel (or vessel’s towed equipment) that indicates a 

“voluntary approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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 Protected Species Observer (PSO).” The 

Programmatic EIS has also been revised to include information from 

recent sound source verification monitoring (Zykov and Mac Donnell, 

2013; Martin et al, 2012) and the results of these studies have been 

applied to clarifying the HRG Survey Protocol. Last, under OCSLA, 

BOEM can only regulate energy activities in the OCS and therefore 

cannot discuss the regulation of other industries. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.09 

The DPEIS does not utilize the best available scientific 

evidence, and the conclusions reached on critical issues are 

therefore simply wrong. Specifically, the DPEIS errs when it 

concludes that exposure to sound levels in excess of 180 Db re: 

1 μPa (rms) results in Level A harassment, and that exposure to 

sound levels in excess of 160 dB re: 1 μPa (rms) results in 

Level B harassment. Nor is an adequate scientific basis 

provided for the proposed expansion of shutdown requirements 

to include delphinids, the proposed expansion of the shutdown 

zones, or the proposed separation requirement for seismic 

vessels conducting simultaneous operations.

Our use of the 180-dB and 160-dB criteria, as cited in this comment, are 

based on their acceptance by NMFS and, therefore, we believe they are 

reasonable. NMFS specifies that marine mammals exposed to pulsed 

sounds with received levels exceeding 180 or 190 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. The Programmatic 

EIS also presents injury calculations using the Southall criteria, which 

were developed in 2007 and remain the best available science based on 

our updated literature review in Appendix H. The Programmatic EIS 

has been revised to clarify the shutdown requirements for delphinids. 

Specifically, Appendix C, Sections 3.2.2.5 and 3.3.3 indicate that 

“shutdown would not be required for delphinids approaching the vessel 

(or vessel’s towed equipment) that indicates a “voluntary approach” on 

behalf of the delphinid. 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 Protected 

Species Observer (PSO).” As stated in Chapter 2.2.2.3, the 40-km 

(22-nmi; 25-mi) separation distance was based on an operational limit to 

eliminate overlapping reflections received from multiple source arrays. 

The modeling done for this project estimated the largest exposure radii 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-113

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

for the 160-dB threshold (Level B) for a large airgun array to be 

approximately 15 km (8 nmi; 9 mi). However, new information suggests 

that, in some circumstances, airgun noise can be detected great distances 

from the sound source, such as across ocean basins (Nieukirk et al., 

2012). Although it is unknown if detection at these distances has any 

effect on marine mammals, a 40-km (22-nmi; 25-mi) separation distance 

may not be an appropriate measures in all situations. As such, BOEM 

has decided to keep the 40-km separation distance as part of Alternative 

B but may not apply this specific measure programmatically. Instead, 

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. This evaluation will also consider any potential 

aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any). BOEM does 

not expect concurrent surveys in nearby areas to be a common 

occurrence. The rationale for expansion of the shutdown zones (by 

comparison with the uniform 500-m radius specified in NTL 2012-

JOINT-G02) is provided in Appendix C, Section 3.2.1. The radius of 

the exclusion zone would be based on the predicted range at which 

animals could be exposed to a received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 

1 μPa, which is the current NMFS criterion for Level A harassment of 

cetaceans. The radius would be calculated for each survey but would not 

be less than 500 m. The expansion of the radius beyond 500 m (164 ft) 

is based on acoustic modeling in Appendix D showing that the 180-dB 

radius could exceed this distance (e.g., values ranged from 799 to 

2,109 m [2,621 to 6,919 ft] for a large airgun array as shown in 

Table D-21). Please reference Appendix M for new information on 

acoustic criteria.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.10 

Further to this, industry does not believe the principle of 

equating received sound levels to takes has been subjected to 

public comment or peer review as is required for rulemaking. 

In addition, this interpretive application of exposure as a proxy 

for incidental take is not supported by the MMPA, which 

requires that harassment must take place. 16 U.S.C. 

1362(18)(A). In the case of Level B Harassment, the 

disturbance must be related to a disruption in behavioral 

patterns, not just behavioral change. 16 U.S.C. 

1362(18)(A)(ii), 1362(18)(D). Bow-riding by dolphins is an 

excellent example of a normal behavioral pattern and should 

not therefore be assessed as a take based on received sound 

levels, using any metric.

BOEM and NMFS appreciate the comment and it is noted. BOEM 

utilizes the MMPA criteria identified by NMFS, and considers the take 

estimates to be conservative. BOEM acknowledges that determining 

whether there is “disruption” of behavioral patterns is a complex and 

difficult issue that is the subject of ongoing research and discussion, but 

there have been many scientific studies that have shown acoustic sources 

change the behavior of many species (see Chapter 4.2.2 and 

Appendix H). However, BOEM is conducting an impact analysis and 

has no jurisdiction with respect to authorizing incidental takes. In 

conducting the impact analysis, we have to recognize the criteria 

currently used by NMFS, under which a marine mammal exposed to a 

sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is considered to be a 

Level A incidental take. As noted in responses to previous comments, 

the choice of metric used to determine takes was made by NMFS.
L-114 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

All of the incidental takes calculated in Appendix E were estimated 

without mitigation other than the time-area closures, and therefore,

dolphins predicted to be within the exclusion zone would be counted as 

incidental takes in our estimates; the discussion in Chapter 4.2.2.2.2

notes that this is a conservative assumption. We acknowledge that not 

all animals in all cases change their behavior, as exemplified by bowriding dolphins.

The Programmatic EIS has been revised to clarify the shutdown 

requirements for delphinids. Specifically, Appendix C, Sections 3.2.2.5

and 3.3.3 indicate that “shutdown would not be required for delphinids 

approaching the vessel (or vessel’s towed equipment) that indicates a 

“voluntary approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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 Protected Species Observer (PSO).” 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.11 

Finally, there is no jurisdictional precedent defining whether 

sound occurring at a certain level constitutes take. It is simply 

not enough for an animal to be exposed to a sound. For there to 

be a “take” based on harassment, there must be “disruption” of 

a “pattern” of behavior and it must be caused by an act of 

pursuit, torment or annoyance. 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(A). B.

BOEM acknowledges that determining whether there is “disruption” of 

behavioral patterns is a complex and difficult issue that is the subject of 

ongoing research and discussion. BOEM is conducting an impact 

analysis and has no jurisdiction with respect to authorizing incidental 

takes. In conducting the impact analysis, we have to recognize the 

criteria currently used by NMFS, under which a marine mammal 

exposed to a sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is considered 

to be a Level A incidental take. As noted in responses to previous 

comments, the choice of metric used to determine takes was made by 

NMFS.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.12 

The PEIS lacks any analysis of the Congressional purpose 

enshrined in the OCS Lands Act; the manner in which the 

seismic surveying at issue in the DPEIS advances those goals; 

and the question whether Alternative A versus Alternative B, or 

the proposed mitigation measures contained in both 

Alternative A and Alternative B would have a materially 

negative impact upon the accomplishment of those goals. This 

is a fundamental flaw in the DPEIS, and one that leads to the 

inclusion of inappropriate proposed mitigation measures.

The purpose of the proposed action, described in Chapter 1.4.2, is to 

gather state-of-the-practice data about the ocean bottom and subsurface. 

The data collected through G&G surveys provides information about the 

location and extent of oil and gas reserves, other marine mineral 

reserves, seafloor topography and geological hazards for installation of 

structures. The need for the data is to use the information obtained 

through surveys to: 

(1) make informed decisions regarding development of OCS minerals, 

(2) protect existing biological and human resources, and 

(3) provide a knowledge base for economic purposes to allow BOEM the 

ability to best benefit the public in the management of our offshore 

resources and minerals to provide the best return and for industry to 

identify the best and safest development options. 

That oil and gas lease holders have an expectation to develop their leases 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-115

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

is clearly stated in OCSLA Section 8(b)(4). We are, however, at a stage 

in development of this AOI where we are considering the steps that 

could lead to leasing. On the way to such consideration OCSLA Section 

18(H)(3) requires this Agency to select the timing and location of 

leasing, to the maximum extent practicable, so as to obtain a proper 

balance between the potential for environmental damage and the 

potential for the discovery of oil and gas. Chapter 2.7 has been 

developed to identify Alternative B as the Agency’s Preferred 

Alternative, and the analysis there includes consideration of the extent to 

which the alternatives would meet the purpose and need as described in 

Chapter 1.4.2. Last, it should be noted that BOEM promotes energy 

independence, environmental protection and economic development 

through responsible, science-based management of offshore 

conventional and renewable energy resources.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.13 

In determining programmatic goals, and hence what proposed 

alternatives are ”reasonable”, an:”agency‘s evaluation of its 

objectives is heavily influenced by the agency’s consideration 

of “the views of Congress, expressed, to the extent that the 

agency can determine them, in the agency’s statutory 

authorization to act, as well as in other congressional 

directives”. Pena, 972 F. Supp. at 18 (emphasis added).

The Congressional language directing the evaluation in this 

Programmatic EIS is reproduced in its entirety in Chapter 2.5.1 and 

speaks for itself. The alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS 

are based on technical feasibility and economic viability, which would 

be our definition of “reasonable.” A proposed alternative is reasonable 

only if it will fulfill the Programmatic EIS’s purpose and need.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.14 

BOEM‘s only obligation is to assess reasonably likely 

environmental impacts, South Fork Band Council of Western 

Shoshone of Nevada v. DOI, 588 F.3d 718, 727 (9th Cir. 

2009), not impacts that are simply a mere possibility. ―An EIS 

need not discuss...conjectural consequences, Sierra Club v. 

Hodel, 544 F.2d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 1976), and alternatives 

and mitigation measures therefore cannot be imposed to 

counteract purported effects for which there exists no credible 

scientific proof. The Draft PEIS violates these precepts in, for 

example, its establishment of exclusions zones based upon 

conjectural impacts of exposure to arbitrarily selected sound 

thresholds. 

BOEM believes the impacts assessed in the Programmatic EIS are 

reasonably likely and not simply a mere possibility, conjectural, or 

having no credible scientific proof as stated in the comment. The effects 

of noise on marine mammals are well documented as summarized in 

Chapter 4.2.2.2.2 of the Programmatic EIS. Although we acknowledge 

that the understanding of acoustic impacts is incomplete, underwater 

noise and the anthropogenic causes of it most certainly are stressors for 

marine mammals that rely on hearing acoustic communications from 

conspecifics for their life activities or as a means to locate prey. NMFS 

has established acoustic criteria for the harassment levels recognized in 

law, and a healthy debate continues with respect to how protective they 

are. However, the calculations presented in the Programmatic EIS 

demonstrate that without mitigation, marine mammals would be exposed 

to sound levels that would exceed the NMFS criteria for Level A 

harassment (i.e., “has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild”) as well as the Southall et al. (2007) criteria 

for injury. The mitigation measures that are part of the proposed action, 

including the exclusion zones, are designed to reduce the potential for 

such impacts to occur.
L-116 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.15 

The DPEIS must assess economic effects. In considering 

alternatives and possible mitigation measures, the agency “may 

legitimately consider such facts as cost to the applicant and 

logistics.”

There is no NEPA requirement for a cost-benefit analysis as a 

discriminator between alternatives, particularly if there are important 

qualitative considerations (40 CFR § 1502.23). However, an EIS should 

indicate considerations, including factors not related to environmental 

quality, which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision 

(40 CFR § 1502.23). A screening of cost was performed for 2-D seismic 

surveys and is summarized in Chapter 2.7 and in Table 2-7. However, 

because of the proprietary nature of cost information related to much of 

the oil and gas seismic data acquisition, a full economic assessment was 

not performed nor was a cost benefit analysis conducted.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.16 

The DPEIS must contain a cost-benefit analysis. There is no NEPA requirement for a cost-benefit analysis as a 

discriminator between alternatives, particularly if there are important 

qualitative considerations (40 CFR § 1502.23). However, an EIS should 

indicate considerations, including factors not related to environmental 

quality, which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision 

(40 CFR § 1502.23). Therefore, a cost analysis for inclusion of the 

proposed mitigation measures has been performed and is included in 

Chapter 2.7. A screening of cost was performed for 2-D seismic 

surveys and is summarized in Chapter 2.7 and in Table 2-7. However, 

because of the proprietary nature of cost information related to much of 

the oil and gas seismic data acquisition, a full economic assessment was 

not performed nor was a cost benefit analysis conducted.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.17 

Given the lack of active leases and planned lease sales, the 

DPEIS greatly overstates the anticipated level of industry 

seismic activity. The projected activity estimates submitted in 

May 2010 are no longer endorsed by the geophysical industry 

and should not be used in the development of the DPEIS.

The projected level of activity used for analysis in the Programmatic EIS 

is based on survey permit applications received by BOEM. A projected 

level of activity was required to construct a scenario for the NEPA

evaluation. The actual level of activity that results may differ. Before a 

site-specific evaluation begins, permit applicants to this Agency would 

be required to resubmit their applications using new BOEM forms. 

Once issued, a permit is valid for up to 1 year. The applicant would need 

to carefully plan the proposed work to ensure it could be completed 

within the year.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.18 

The accuracy of the DPEIS would be enhanced by more fully 

characterizing the important role that geophysical imaging 

technologies offer E&P operations toward increasing safety and 

reducing environmental risks in E&P operations, particularly 

during drilling operations. At present, there are no 

commercially available and viable alternatives to current 

geophysical imaging technologies, which have been employed 

and continuously refined over the last six decades to be more 

efficient and emit less sound energy.

This is outside of the scope of the NEPA document, which is not meant 

to expand on the virtues of current technology. However, seismic 

imaging technology has continued to improve over the last several 

decades due to improvements in seismic equipment, operational 

techniques and data processing. An argument could be made that the 

resulting higher resolution seismic data enables more precise drilling 

which could mean that less wells may have to be drilled (lower 

environmental footprint) and that the wells and production platforms can 

be placed in safer subsurface conditions to avoid gas pockets, faults or 

areas where slumping occurs.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-117

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

However, the trend in seismic acquisition is not towards “less sound 

energy” being emitted. For example, the need for higher resolution 

imaging and rock property determination (seismic inversion) requires 

more bandwidth. Therefore the tendency in many cases is to deploy 

bigger airgun arrays. Moreover, the adoption of new operational 

techniques such as multi-azimuth and coil shooting require additional 

seismic sources and source vessels to be employed. In addition, BOEM 

conducted a Workshop in February 2013 to examine the status of 

quieting technologies for seismic surveying in order to identify 

alternative, lower energy methods of performing surveys.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.19 

The DPEIS notes the requirement for reasonable alternatives: 

These regulations (40 CFR 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. [Page 

1- 11] The range of alternatives should include one without the 

closure areas for the North Atlantic right whales. This would 

address the agency‘s NEPA requirements to include a 

reasonable range of alternatives. In addition, for the reasons 

explained in Industry‘s cover letter and in these comments, the 

proposed mitigation measures should not expand the seismic 

airgun survey protocol beyond what already appears in NTL 

2012-G02. 

BOEM and NOAA believe that an alternative that does not include the 

closure area for right whales would not be considered reasonable. The 

inclusion of a time-area closure(s) recognizing the ESA status of the 

North American Right Whale was a reasonable alternative because the 

species is already protected in its critical habitat, SMAs, and DMAs by 

NOAA’s vessel strike reduction rule (50 CFR § 224.105). Airgun and 

HRG Survey Protocols have been finalized with NMFS through formal 

Section 7 consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion 

(Appendix A). We have also identified the review and approval process 

that would be utilized for site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5. 

The requirements expressed in our NTL 2012-JOINT-G02 are minimum 

and applicable to the Gulf of Mexico. For example, the NTL includes 

water depth and longitude requirements that are specific to the GOM. 

The exclusion zones calculated in Appendix D of the Programmatic EIS 

are based on acoustic modeling using Atlantic conditions which show 

that the 180-dB radius could range from 799 to 2,109 m (2,621 to 

6,919 ft) for a large airgun array as shown in Table D-21, and therefore 

the uniform 500-m (1,640-ft) exclusion radius used in the Gulf of 

Mexico NTL is not appropriate for the proposed action.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.20 

The DPEIS presents an environmental consequences analysis 

that incorrectly assesses the environmental effects of seismic 

operations on both an absolute basis and equally importantly on 

a comparative basis with other known sources of risk to 

individual animals and populations. The analysis appears to 

give equivalent weight to potential risks, which are not 

equivalent – Level A (mortality/injury) and Level B 

(behavioral effect many of which are likely short-term and 

transitory). These low behavioral effect levels are then labeled 

as a greater risk (“Moderate”) than non-industry activities such 

as vessel strikes and fishing gear entanglements involving 

mortality to marine mammals of concern, which are labeled as 

Not all behavioral effects (Level B harassment) are considered minor. 

Richardson et al. (1995) states “Almost all data on disturbance reactions, 

whether observational or experimental, have concerned short-term 

behavioral reactions. These studies often determined distances or 

received sound levels at which animals first reacted noticeably. 

Recognized reactions usually involved cessation of feeding, resting, or 

social interaction, and onset of alertness or avoidance...In whales, 

avoidance may mean hasty diving, swimming away, or both...The 

significance of short-term, behavioral responses as they relate to the 

well-being of individuals and populations is rarely known. Most brief 

interruptions of normal behavior may have little effect on overall energy 

balance and reproductive performance. However, physiological 
L-118 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

“Minor” environmental effects. Conflicting standards in the 

environmental consequence yields an internally contradicted 

DPEIS assessment of risks regarding a multitude of activities. 

Minor and short-term behavioral effects associated with 

seismic surveys appear to be judged more consequential than 

known causes of animal mortality, such as ship strikes.

reactions may occur even if no overt behavioral response is evident. 

The rationale for the impact determination for non-industry activities 

(e.g., vessel strikes, fishing gear entanglements) which may result in 

mortality to marine mammals (i.e., determined to be “Minor”) rests, in 

part, on mitigation measures currently in place (e.g., restrictions on 

fishing gear; vessel speed restrictions) and their effectiveness. In 

addition, the level of G&G-related vessel activity considered in this 

analysis, as compared to other vessel operations, is very small.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.21 

Clearly differentiate the difference between the sound field, the 

animals exposed to sound and injury or behavioral exposure.

An explanation of these terms can be found in Appendix H, Sections 3

and 4. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.22 

Adopt the Southall Criteria (Southall, et al. 2007), which would 

establish the following thresholds: Level A at 198 dB re: 1 

μPa2-s with M-weighting embedded in calculated RL’s SEL 

(Sound Exposure Level); Level B at the lowest level of TTSonset as a proxy until better data is developed.

The acoustic exposures predicted by the Acoustic Integration Model 

(AIM) were evaluated using both the 160-/180-dB criteria and the 

Southall et al. (2007) criteria. NMFS, the Federal agency that 

determines the MMPA thresholds, determined the criteria that were used.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.23 

The DPEIS analysis does not adequately consider the fact that 

many animals avoid vessels regardless of whether they are 

emitting loud sounds and may increase that avoidance distance 

during seismic operations (Richardson et al. 2011). Therefore, 

it should be a reasonable assumption that natural avoidance 

serves to provide another level of protection to the animals.

The impact analysis in Chapter 4.2.2.2.2 notes that some marine 

mammals may avoid acoustic sources and this behavior could result in 

lower levels of exposure to the highest sound levels. However, it is not 

possible to quantify this effect. Moreover, we would characterize 

avoidance behavior as an impact and not another level of protection.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.24 

To foster meaningful dialogue and avoid confusion and poor 

decisions regarding industry acoustics issues, the DPEIS should 

adequately and accurately describe acoustic source levels.

Evaluation of acoustic effects should include both the 

cumulative energy criterion in Southall et al., (2007) as well as 

proposed cumulative energy criterion. Southall et al. indicates 

that, for impulse sounds, any cetacean exposed to either a peak 

pressure ≥230 dB re 1 μPa or a cumulative sound exposure 

level (energy) of 198 dB re 1 μPa2 –sec might incur auditory 

injury. The DPEIS should explicitly note the SEL criteria, 

which is the one that will almost always (if not always) be the 

determining factor. The document in several places relies on 

Root Mean Square (RMS) Sound Pressure Level criteria for 

acoustic impacts. The most recent research has questioned the 

adequacy of these criteria.15 Instead, they should be replaced 

by a combination of Sound Exposure Level limits and Peak 

(not RMS) Sound Pressure Levels or other metric being 

considered.

The acoustic exposures predicted by the Acoustic Integration Model 

(AIM©) were evaluated using both the 160-/180-dB criteria and the 

Southall et al. (2007) criteria. The criteria were used because the 

regulatory agency, NMFS, has not formally adopted the use of the 

Southall et al. (2007) criteria. The Programmatic EIS includes extensive 

calculations describing acoustic sources in Appendix D. We calculated 

potential impacts using the Southall criteria for comparison to the 

historical NMFS Level A criteria. The debate of the validity of the RMS 

metric for seismic and impulsive signals are well known and readily 

acknowledged. However, the Programmatic EIS must reflect the current 

exposure criteria used by the regulatory agencies.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-119

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.25 

The PEIS should incorporate frequency weighting in 

development of incidental take estimates. Hearing (frequency) 

varies from species to species and among the cetaceans 

discussed in the DPEIS. Not all the frequencies used by 

industry fall within an animal‘s functional hearing range. In 

assessing the effects of noise, the M-weighted curve is applied 

to correct the sound-level measurement for the frequencydependent hearing function. (Southall et al., 2007)

NMFS currently requires that exposure analyses exclude M-weighting. 

The Programmatic EIS reflects this regulatory requirement. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.26 

The biology of dolphin hearing mechanisms should be 

considered in the DPEIS. It is well known in the Gulf of 

Mexico and other regions that dolphins frequently enter the 

seismic exclusion zone to bow ride seismic vessels.

Dolphin hearing (functional hearing group) is discussed in Appendix H, 

Section 3.2 and mitigation measures regarding bow riding response to 

vessels, including survey vessels are discussed in Chapters 2.1.3.1 and 

2.1.3.2 as well as Appendix C, Sections 3.2.2.5 and 3.3.3. The 

Programmatic EIS has been revised to clarify the shutdown requirements 

for delphinids. Specifically, Appendix C, Sections 3.2.2.5 and 3.3.3

indicate that “shutdown would not be required for delphinids 

approaching the vessel (or vessel’s towed equipment) that indicates a 

“voluntary approach” on behalf of the delphinid. 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 Protected Species Observer (PSO).”

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.27 

The DPEIS proposes to require standard mitigation measures 

for all action alternatives. It also then proposes consideration of 

future optional mitigation measures. Consideration of 

mitigating measures cannot be disassociated from the risks they 

are intended to mitigate and requirements that they be effective. 

In fact, a Council on Environmental Quality memorandum 

notes that if agencies cannot determine if mitigation was 

implemented or effective, mitigation requirements fail to 

advance NEPA objectives of informed and transparent 

decision-making. [CEQ 2011] Decisions regarding mitigation 

come through a variety of channels as the DPEIS notes and 

decisions about mitigation measures should be respectful of the 

procedures and jurisdictions that have historically evaluated 

and implemented mitigation requirements.

A discussion of Adaptive Management has been added to Chapter 1.7.6

and Appendix C, Section 7 to address this issue; please see that text for 

an explanation of how future management changes will be incorporated 

into the program. Briefly, BOEM and NMFS will consider future data 

on the efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation requirements 

for individual surveys based on the best available information at that 

time. BOEM has recently evaluated the effectiveness of our protected 

species program in the Gulf of Mexico (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a), so the 

topic has not gone unexamined. BOEM is currently funding studies and 

workshops to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of mitigation 

measures such as the Support for JIP Controlled Exposure Experiments 

with Humpback Whales and Seismic Air Gun Arrays and Testing of 

Effectiveness of Ramp-Up (http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/

BOEM/Environmental_Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/National/

NT1008.pdf). 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 agencies, State and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), industry, tribal governments and 
L-120 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

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 the resource(s) at issue while 

allowing for the program and its activities to continue. In November 

2012, BOEM and NMFS sponsored a Mitigation and Monitoring 

Workshop for the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in Herndon, Virginia. This 

workshop involved multiple stakeholders, including other Federal 

agencies, industry, academia, and NGOs. While the workshop focused 

on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the incidental take 

authorization process specific to G&G activities in the GOM, the goal of 

the workshop was to seek individual expert input from stakeholders to 

develop “an appropriate suite of effective and practicable mitigations” 

and to develop “a comprehensive monitoring plan that [would] enable 

stakeholders to answer questions regarding marine mammals, the effects 

of industry activities, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.”

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.28 

The DPEIS mentions adaptive management on page ES-34 and 

elsewhere. The implication is that mitigation requirements 

could be altered over time. Industry has supported the 

application of adaptive management in a number of contexts. 

However, in the DPEIS the term is positioned toward the use of 

adaptive management to further restrict activities and it does 

not leave room for adaptive management to reduce restrictions. 

Adaptive management should also be applied to the need for 

corrections, if new science alters existing understandings. If 

monitoring shows undetectable or limited impacts, an adaptive 

management strategy should allow for decreased restrictions on 

oil and gas exploration. The conditions under which decreased 

restrictions will occur should be plainly stated in the discussion 

of adaptive management.

The issue of adaptive management is important, as its use can ensure 

mitigation measures effectively match existing conditions and 

knowledge. Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7 have been added 

to of the Programmatic EIS to better address the role adaptive 

management will play in the future.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.29 

Right Whale Closure Area Proposal - The proposal to establish 

a six-month no-seismic activity zone is a significant step. 

BOEM should initiate rulemaking to enable sufficient study 

and public comment before requiring it. Such a proposal would 

need to consider other sound producers. Assuming that such a 

proposal is warranted, would such a restriction apply for 

example to all NOAA vessels or do the agencies propose 

selectively enforcing such a requirement only on one set of 

vessels? The Alternative B proposal is largely based upon 

attention to migration routes. At present, the Critical Habitat 

Designation for North Atlantic Right Whales does not include 

these areas. Establishing migration pathways as opposed to 

We do not believe a separate rulemaking is necessary to establish a 

6-month time-area closure for seismic airgun deployment in the right 

whale critical habitat and SMAs. Rulemaking is not required to analyze 

the use of a time-area closure as a mitigation measure for subsequently 

authorized G&G activities. The NARW is an endangered species and 

the entire life cycle of their activity, including migration routes, is 

relevant to the analysis of potential mitigation measures if possible takes 

could occur by permitted Federal activity. BOEM is only responsible for 

authorizing G&G surveys under its jurisdiction, not vessel activity in 

general. We do propose to take reasonable and prudent protective 

measures consistent with the status of this species based on consultation 

with NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Further, the 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-121

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

aggregation areas for critical life functions of feeding, calving, 

etc. is a significant step. What basis does BOEM have in 

proposing such a step and has it considered rulemaking to 

ensure there is adequate consideration of all the factors before 

implementing such a regime?

public will have additional opportunities to comment on proposed 

mitigation measures during the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

permitting process when NMFS issues a Federal Register notice on the 

receipt of application and proposal to issue an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization. This is in addition to the site-specific analyses that 

BOEM will also conduct for each permit request.

The authorization of G&G activities in support of all three of BOEM’s 

program areas, under the Preferred Alternative, Alternative B includes 

mitigation measures to ensure the proposed G&G activities comply with 

existing laws and regulations. The mitigation measures include 

measures to reduce and avoid impacts to a variety of biological 

resources, with an emphasis on reducing acoustic impacts to marine 

mammals and sea turtles.

Under the expanded time-area closure, no seismic surveys using airguns 

would be authorized within the NARW critical habitat from November 

15 through April 15, the Mid Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMA, from 

November 1 through April 30, and the expanded closure areas during the 

times when vessel speed restrictions are in effect under the Right Whale 

Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105) from November 1 to 

April 30 for the North area and November 15 to April 15 for the South 

area. 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.30 

Exclusion zone size - If sound source modeling is to be 

required and be used to increase the size of the exclusion zone 

– then it should also be available to reduce the size of the 

exclusion zone. The DPEIS should also be more specific as to 

how sound measurements are to be conducted. In addition, the 

proposal does not explain how long such a requirement would 

be in place. Experience in other areas including the U.S. Arctic 

have shown that after a few such field source verification tests 

the size of such zones are well established and there is adequate 

knowledge of them. Requiring verification tests after such a 

point brings no new knowledge and is not warranted.

BOEM agrees, the modeling could increase or decrease the size of the 

exclusion zone. The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol has been revised to 

require that operators establish an exclusion zone for each survey. The 

zone shall be calculated independently, be based on the configuration of 

the array and the ambient environment, but shall not have a radius of less 

than 500 m (1,640 ft). In some cases field verification or modeling may 

be conducted for non-airgun high-resolution geophysical acoustic 

sources. Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for the clarified 

mitigation requirements. In the BO, sound source verification is a term 

and condition. NMFS and BOEM may revisit the issue at a future date.

BOEM's adaptive management process may also help inform this 

decision.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.31 

Separation between simultaneous airgun surveys - The need for 

such a requirement and the manner in which it was calculated 

are questionable. A separation requirement for seismic surveys 

should therefore not be established at this time. The DPEIS 

acoustics risk assessments do not adequately address the issue 

of overlapping sound fields. The stated procedure of “rounding 

up to 20 and then doubling” does not convey a well thought out 

approach.

BOEM believes that the 40 km separation distance between 

simultaneously operating surveys is sufficiently conservative and 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. This evaluation will also consider any potential aggregate 

effects from existing permitted surveys (if any). A discussion of 

Adaptive Management has been added to Chapter 1.7.6 and 

Appendix C, Section 7 to address this issue; please see that text for an 
L-122 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

explanation of how future management changes will be incorporated into 

the program. Briefly, BOEM and NMFS will consider future data on the 

efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation requirements based 

on the best available information at that time.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.32 

Dolphins Shut-down Factors - The DPEIS nonetheless 

proposes adding dolphins to the shut-down requirement. It is 

not clear on what basis BOEM proposes such a change. The 

DPEIS should include a biological assessment indicating that 

the acoustic risks to dolphins warrant such a change. It has 

been commonly observed, in fact, that dolphins seek to “bow 

ride” seismic and other vessels, challenging assertions of harm 

to the animals. The fact that various marine mammals want to 

approach and enter the ensonified area raises serious questions 

about the basic validity of a regulatory approach that rigidly 

established proximity to sound as its basis. The DPEIS 

recognizes this issue of forcing shut-downs for animals that 

want to be in the exclusion zone: However, shutdown would 

not be required for dolphins approaching the vessel or towed 

equipment at a speed and vector that indicates voluntary 

approach to bow-ride or chase towed equipment. If a dolphin 

voluntarily moves into the exclusion zone after the airguns are 

operating, it is reasoned that the sound pressure level is not 

negatively affecting that particular animal. Industry suggests 

that rather than adding dolphins to the survey protocol, BOEM 

should provide similar provisions to not shut-down when 

cetaceans are voluntarily in the observation zone.

BOEM developed the protocol based on the current NMFS criteria for 

Level A harassment. It was determined that it would not be appropriate 

for the protocol to automatically exclude any marine mammal species 

from the shutdown requirements within the exclusion zone. The 

protocol has been clarified in Appendix C and does include the 

provision that shutdown would not be required for delphinids 

approaching the vessel or towed equipment at a speed and vector that 

indicates voluntary approach to bow ride or chase 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. Appendix C, Sections 

3.2.2.5 and 3.3.3 have been revised to clarify the shutdown requirements 

for delphinids. The exception for bow-riding delphinids does not 

warrant a general exception for other marine mammals to be in the 

exclusion zone without a shutdown.

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.33 

Whale Shut Down Factors - The Association recommends the 

wording should be changed to “steer the vessel away from the 

whale.” With the streamers in the water, a seismic vessel is 

traveling at 4 to 5 knots and is not at high speed.

The text in Appendix C, Chapter 3.1.1 has been revised to reflect this 

change. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-123

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Andy Radford, 

American 

Petroleum Institute

I-E-12 0.34 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) and Protected Species 

Observers - We recommend that basic training criteria, such as 

that specified by many countries for marine mammal observers 

(MMOs), be developed and required for PAM operators. In 

addition, minimum requirements for PAM equipment 

(including capabilities of software and hardware) should also 

be considered.

BOEM agrees with this comment and has been undergoing efforts with 

NMFS, industry, and the MMC to (1) standardize PSO training, 

qualifications, and other requirements; and (2) develop standards for 

PAM for seismic operations. These two efforts are a work in progress. 

BOEM plans to provide any final outcomes of these efforts to all 

interested stakeholders, once available. NTL 2012-JOINT-G02 

(“Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program”) provides the guidelines for the use of PAM 

for seismic airgun surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. That NTL would 

likely be applicable to the use of PAM in the Atlantic, whether required 

for airgun surveys or encouraged for other surveys. The Biological 

Opinion issued by NMFS also provides conditions for the use of PAM 

relative to operator proficiency and system type.

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.01 

In summary, BOEM should develop a Supplemental DPEIS to 

address the following points: 1) If HRG surveys are going to be 

exempt from the time-area closures for “operations” only, than 

“operations” must be clearly defined in detail within a 

Supplemental DPEIS in order for the reader and commenting 

Agencies to fully understand the Alternatives and the Proposed 

Action and their potential impacts. If the definition of 

“operations” means any survey or operation in support of 

marine mineral exploration regardless of project status than 

Coastal Planning and Engineering Inc. (CPE) has no issue with 

the DPEIS as outlined.

HRG non-airgun sources such as boomers, chirp seismic, sub-bottom 

profilers, side scan sonar and multibeam, swath, and single beam 

bathymetric sonars would be authorized year-round in the AOI, 

including within NARW critical habitat and SMAs from November 15 

through April 15, and DMAs, subject to the requirements of the survey 

protocol. BOEM’s use of the term “operations” related to HRG surveys 

means any non airgun survey or operation in support of marine minerals; 

oil, gas, and sulfur; and/or renewable energy regardless of project status. 

The Programmatic EIS has been revised to make this clear wherever 

similar statements are made.

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.02 

By electing to describe the HRG system impacts in terms of 

their Source Level (sound energy level at the face of the 

transmitter) as opposed to their Transmit Level (which takes 

into account the transmit direction, distance from source, and 

energy level integration across the full signal bandwidth) the 

DPEIS unfairly overestimates the impact of HRG systems. The 

transmit levels of HRG systems must be evaluated and 

described within a Supplemental DPEIS, and if small enough, 

should justify an HRG mineral exploration exemption from the 

time-area closures.

A Supplemental EIS is not needed to address this comment because the 

information is already presented in the Programmatic EIS. In order to 

accurately model any sound source the source level must be the starting 

point. Table 3-11 provides a summary of representative source levels 

for the active acoustic sound sources included in the proposed action. 

Source level is the maximum loudness at the source under specified 

settings and assumed frequency, pulse length, and directionality. Select 

HRG sources also allow for manipulation of power settings, etc., such 

that a lower source level than the maximum specified by the 

manufacturer is possible. While source level is important, the frequency 

range and whether it overlaps the hearing range of marine mammals in 

the area is an equally important consideration. Received levels have 

been calculated for all sounds sources modeled and are the basis for 

determining impacts resulting from use of each source. The “incidental

take” modeling conducted in Appendix E used the received levels that 

animals would be exposed to in the environment, making conservative 

assumptions about the source characteristics including directionality, 
L-124 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

beam width, towing configurations, as well as the sound transmission 

characteristics of the ocean and the distance of the receiver from the 

source.

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.03 

HRG systems have reduced potential for marine mammal 

impacts due to their focused axial sound energy, reduced 

transmit levels, and towing configurations close to the seafloor. 

These facts must be addressed within a Supplemental DPEIS in 

order to accurately quantify the true potential for HRG impacts 

to marine mammals and if small enough, should justify an 

HRG mineral exploration exemption from the time-area 

closures. 

A Supplemental EIS is not needed to address this comment because the 

information is already presented in Appendix D and Appendix E of the 

Programmatic EIS and those calculations were used to support the 

impact analysis in Chapter 4.0. The “incidental take” modeling 

conducted in Appendix E used the received levels that animals would be 

exposed to in the environment, making conservative assumptions about 

the source characteristics including directionality, beam width, towing 

configurations, as well as the sound transmission characteristics of the 

ocean and distance of the receive from the source. Appendix D,

Section 3 provides a complete description of all G&G survey equipment 

with separate sections for airguns and electromechanical sources, the 

latter group being those used for HRG surveys. Appendix D, Section 4

describes the modeling methodology, with a complete sub-section for 

each piece of survey equipment that takes into consideration beam 

pattern, directionality, and operational characteristics such as towing 

configuration. In addition, HRG non-airgun sources such as boomers, 

chirp seismic, sub-bottom profilers, side-scan sonar and multibeam, 

swath, and single-beam bathymetric sonars would be authorized yearround in the AOI, including within NARW critical habitat and SMAs 

from November 15 through April 15 and DMAs, subject to the 

requirements of the survey protocol (Chapter 2.1.3.2 and Appendix C).

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.04 

With the proposed PSO, ramp-up, and shut-down mitigation 

measures in the DPEIS, potential HRG take is greatly reduced 

– if not totally eliminated – and therefore, HRG systems should 

be exempt from the time-area closures included in this DPEIS. 

These facts must be addressed within a Supplemental DPEIS in 

order to accurately quantify the true potential for HRG impacts 

(together with the proposed mitigation measures) to marine 

mammals and if small enough, should justify an HRG mineral 

exploration exemption from the time-area closures.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. See Appendix A for further information about HRG surveys 

in the NARW closure area. Mitigation measures for non-airgun HRG 

acoustic sources with differing source frequencies differ and acoustic 

exclusion zone monitoring and shutdown do not universally apply to all 

non-airgun HRG surveys. As part of the clarification of the HRG Survey 

Protocol, the NARW time-area closures do not apply to many non-airgun 

HRG sources. Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated 

survey protocols. A Supplemental EIS is not needed because the issues 

raised by this comment are already addressed in the Programmatic EIS. 

As stated in Chapter 2.2.2.1 (for the NARW time-area closure) and 

Chapter 2.2.2.2 (for the sea turtle time-area closure), the time-area 

closures included in Alternatives A and B apply specifically to airgun 

seismic surveys. Based on the calculations in Appendix E, non airgun 

HRG surveys have the potential to result in incidental takes of marine 

mammals. As stated above Seismic Airgun and HRG Survey Protocols 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-125

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

have been clarified since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS and 

have been finalized with NMFS through formal Section 7 consultation 

and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (Appendix A). We have also 

identified the review and approval process that would be utilized for 

site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5. BOEM has added a 

discussion of Adaptive Management to the Programmatic EIS (see

Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7); through the Adaptive 

Management process, mitigation requirements could be modified if new 

information indicates that they are infeasible or could be made more 

effective. 

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.05 

HRG mineral exploration is most often conducted using public 

funds for the public benefit. The impact of reducing HRG 

mineral exploration to a single 6 month window – during 

hurricane season – to the public entities funding and 

constructing the shore protection projects must be evaluated 

within a Supplemental DPEIS from a socioeconomic 

standpoint, and if large enough, should justify an HRG mineral 

exploration exemption from the time-area closures.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. Mitigation measures for different non-airgun HRG acoustic 

sources also differ and acoustic exclusion zone monitoring, and 

shutdown do not universally apply to all non-airgun HRG surveys. In 

addition with the clarification of the HRG Survey Protocol, the NARW

time-area closures do not apply to many non-airgun HRG sources. 

Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated survey 

protocols. HRG surveys for marine minerals are not limited to a 6 

month window under either Alternative A or B. As stated in Chapter 

2.2.2.1 (for the NARW time-area closure) and Chapter 2.2.2.2 (for the 

sea turtle time-area closure), the time-area closures included in 

Alternatives A and B apply specifically to airgun seismic surveys. 

BOEM does not expect that airguns would be used for marine minerals 

HRG surveys. Please see response I-E-100.04. 

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.06 

Cumulative impacts to regulatory agencies due to the focusing 

of project design, permitting, and regulatory approvals to 

coincide with the time-area closures after HRG mineral 

exploration has occurred need to be fully evaluated within a 

Supplemental DPEIS, and if large enough, should justify an 

HRG mineral exploration exemption from the time-area 

closures.

After careful consideration, BOEM has concluded that regulatory 

agencies should not be added to the list of resources for which impacts 

from the proposed action are evaluated.

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.07 

The exemption afforded for “Scientific Research” creates a 

barrier to competition for these projects, unfairly biasing the 

market towards academic and federal, state, and local agencies, 

negatively impacting the free-market system, and potentially 

resulting in impacts to quality control and quality assurance 

safeguards. This negative impact is large enough to either 

invalidate the need for a Scientific Research exemption, or 

more appropriately, justify an across-the-board HRG mineral 

exploration exemption from the time-area closures.

The paragraph cited in Chapter 3.4.1 of the Programmatic EIS provides 

an explanation for the authority given to BOEM by the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). As noted in that paragraph, 

BOEM may, under Section 11 of the OCSLA, 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 

does not have authority for scientific research. The fact that BOEM does 

not have authority for scientific research does not create, suggest, or 

imply that an exemption exists.
L-126 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.08 

CPE asserts that the time-area closures in the North Atlantic are 

far too restrictive for HRG surveys in support of marine 

mineral exploration for shore protection projects conducted 

with public funds for the greater public good, and exemptions 

should be made for all HRG surveys conducted in the AOI.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. See Appendix A for further information about HRG surveys 

in the NARW closure area. Mitigation measures for different non-airgun 

HRG acoustic sources also differ and acoustic exclusion zone 

monitoring, and shutdown do not universally apply to all non-airgun 

HRG surveys. In addition with the clarification of the HRG Survey 

Protocol, the NARW time-area closures do not apply to many non-airgun 

HRG sources. Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated 

survey protocols. HRG non-airgun sources such as boomers, chirp 

seismic, sub-bottom profilers, side scan sonar and multibeam, swath, and 

single beam bathymetric sonars would be authorized year-round in the 

AOI, including within NARW critical habitat and SMAs from November 

15 through April 15, and DMAs, subject to the requirements of the 

survey protocol. Based on the calculations in Appendix E, non airgun 

HRG surveys have the potential to result in incidental takes of marine 

mammals. Therefore, BOEM does not believe it is prudent to provide a 

blanket exemption allowing all non airgun HRG surveys in the time-area 

closures. Please see response I-E-10:0.04.

Beau Suthard, 

CPE I-E-10 0.09 

CPE also believes that if a time-area closure is mandated for all 

HRG surveys, that this mandate should be enforced across the 

board to include Scientific Research. Allowing unlicensed 

professionals free reign to conduct offshore mineral exploration 

normally conducted under the industry standard of care under, 

the auspices of Scientific Research, will create quality control 

issues and squeeze private companies out of the free market.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. See Appendix A for further information about HRG surveys 

in the NARW closure area. As part of HRG Survey Protocol the 

Programmatic EIS would not mandate a time-area closure “for all HRG 

surveys.” The time-area closures included in Alternatives A and B apply 

specifically to airgun seismic surveys. BOEM does not have authority 

for scientific research and cannot mandate requirements for surveys that 

are not under its permitting authority. Please see response I-E-10:0.04. 

Such work would be subject to applicable State and Federal regulations 

including Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-127

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Madeleine 

Findley, North 

American 

Submarine Cable 

Association 

I-E-8 0.01 

To ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (“NEPA”) and other legal obligations and to achieve 

effective coordination and protection of potentially competing 

marine activities on the outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”), the 

North American Submarine Cable Association (“NASCA”) 

urges the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) to 

revise its Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(“DPEIS”) in this proceeding to account for the extensive 

presence, critical importance, and unique legal status of 

undersea fiber-optic telecommunications cables. Although the 

potential for conflict between undersea telecommunications 

cables and energy-related activities on the OCS—including 

those in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas—

continues to grow, the DPEIS makes no mention whatsoever of 

undersea telecommunications cables, much less the unique 

rights and protections due to such cables, the federal laws and 

agencies governing such cables, or any of the threats to 

undersea cables posed by energy-related activities in the OCS 

absent awareness and coordination.

A cable infrastructure discussion has been added to Chapter 4.2.12.1.8, 

Known Seabed Obstructions, and a figure has been added (Figure 4-43) 

showing the locations of existing cables in the AOI. BOEM recognizes 

the need for coordination to ensure that with placement of structures and 

bottom-disturbing activities are conducted in a manner that ensures the 

safety of the existing cable. Each individual survey applicant will be 

required to identify the existing infrastructure to ensure protection of the 

cables. Site-specific data will be required by the applicant prior to any 

bottom-disturbing activities. Cable data are available from numerous 

sources and applicants will have access to this cable location data. This 

site-specific data will ensure that the cables are protected. As discussed 

in Chapters 1.6.10 and 1.6.14, individual surveys will require permits 

from the USACOE, which will also assist in avoiding conflicts with 

G&G activities and the cable infrastructure. 

Madeleine 

Findley, North 

American 

Submarine Cable 

Association 

I-E-8 0.02 

Various international treaties to which the United States is a 

party and customary international law (as observed by the 

United States) grant to undersea cables unique rights and 

freedoms not granted to any other activities in the marine 

environment. The DPEIS, however, makes no mention of these 

rights and freedoms or their implications for other marine 

activities, including energy-related ones. In the United States, 

undersea cables are licensed and permitted principally by the 

Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (“ACOE”), and the group of nationalsecurity and law-enforcement agencies known as “Team 

Telecom,” pursuant to various federal statutes and regulations. 

But the DPEIS does not even identify the FCC or Team 

Telecom (much less designate them as coordinating agencies” 

under NEPA) or describe these other statutes and regulations 

(including civil and criminal penalties for undersea cable 

damage), even though regulatory activity pursuant to those 

statutes and regulations could have a variety of impacts on 

energy-related activities on the OCS.

A cable infrastructure discussion has been added to Chapter 4.2.12.1.8, 

“Known Sea Bottom Obstructions.” BOEM recognizes the need for 

coordination to ensure that placement of structures and bottomdisturbing activities are conducted in a manner that ensures the safety of 

the existing cable infrastructure. Each individual survey applicant will 

be required to identify the existing infrastructure to ensure protection of 

the cables. Site-specific data will be required by the applicant prior any 

bottom-disturbing activities. Cable data is available from numerous 

sources and applicants will have access to this cable location data. This 

site-specific data will ensure that the cables are protected. As discussed 

in Chapters 1.6.10 and 1.6.14, individual surveys will require permits 

from the USACOE, which will also assist in avoiding conflicts with 

G&G activities and the cable infrastructure. Furthermore, BOEM 

invited agencies, through the Federal Register Notice of Intent for the 

Programmatic EIS, to indicate their interest in being cooperating 

agencies. The potential cooperating agency mentioned, the FCC (Team 

Telecom is not a Federal agency), did not submit a request to act as 

cooperating agency as a result of the public notice.

Madeleine 

Findley, North 

American 

I-E-8 0.03 

Energy-related activities—including oil and gas exploration 

and exploitation, deep-sea mining, and alternative energy 

activities (wind, wave, and current)—pose numerous threats to 

A cable infrastructure discussion has been added to Chapter 4.2.12.1.8, 

“Known Sea Bottom Obstructions.” BOEM recognizes the need for 

coordination to ensure that placement of structures and 
L-128 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Submarine Cable 

Association 

undersea cables. All three categories of energy-related 

activities threaten to impede access for undersea cable 

installation and maintenance, whether on the ocean surface or 

seafloor, and the risk of damage due to increased vessel 

activity. Oil and gas-related activities also pose threats from 

pipeline crossings. Deep-sea mining poses additional threats 

from direct disturbance and seafloor erosion and abrasion. 

Alternative energy activities also pose additional threats, 

particularly from bottom-scouring from wind turbine towers 

and crossings by power cables of undersea telecommunications 

cables. None of these is discussed in the DPEIS.

bottom-disturbing activities are conducted in a manner that ensures the 

safety of the existing cable infrastructure. Each individual survey 

applicant will be required to identify the existing infrastructure to ensure 

protection of the cables. Site-specific data will be required by the 

applicant prior any bottom-disturbing activities. Cable data are available 

from numerous sources and applicants will have access to this cable 

location data. This site-specific data will ensure that the cables are 

protected. As discussed in Chapter 1.6.10 and 1.6.14, individual 

surveys will require permits from the USACE, which will also assist in 

avoiding conflicts with G&G activities and the cable infrastructure. 

Madeleine 

Findley, North 

American 

Submarine Cable 

Association 

I-E-8 0.04 

The failure to address these threats, potential conflicts, and 

other legal-regulatory regimes is inconsistent with both NEPA 

and Congress’s directive to conduct a PEIS for the Atlantic 

OCS, as that directive was not limited to consideration of 

energy matters only. With respect to NEPA, undersea cable 

activity is “reasonably foreseeable” and should therefore be 

addressed by BOEM as such in revisions to Alternatives A and 

B. BOEM should add conclusions that vessel traffic, grab-andcore sampling, buoy founding and anchoring, and well drilling, 

and any other activities under Alternatives A and B that may 

have an impact on undersea cables would be “moderate” or 

“major” absent further modifications.

A cable infrastructure discussion has been added to Chapter 4.2.12, 

“Known Sea Bottom Obstructions.” BOEM recognizes the need for 

coordination to ensure that placement of structures and 

bottom-disturbing activities are conducted in a manner that ensures the 

safety of the existing cable infrastructure. Each individual survey 

applicant will be required to identify the existing infrastructure to ensure 

protection of the cables. Site-specific data will be required by the 

applicant prior any bottom-disturbing activities. Cable data are available 

from numerous sources and applicants will have access to this cable 

location data. This site-specific data will ensure that the cables are 

protected. As discussed in Chapters 1.6.10 and 1.6.14, individual 

surveys will require permits from the USACE, which will also assist in 

avoiding conflicts with G&G activities and the cable infrastructure. 

Madeleine 

Findley, North 

American 

Submarine Cable 

Association 

I-E-8 0.05 

BOEM should also describe the other laws, regulations, 

treaties, and agencies relating to undersea cables, given the 

potential for conflict with undersea cable and energy-related 

activities, if left uncoordinated.

A cable infrastructure discussion has been added to Chapter 4.2.12.1.8, 

“Known Sea Bottom Obstructions.” BOEM recognizes the need for 

coordination to ensure that placement of structures and 

bottom-disturbing activities are conducted in a manner that ensures the 

safety of the existing cable infrastructure. Each individual survey 

applicant will be required to identify the existing infrastructure to ensure 

protection of the cables. Site-specific data will be required by the 

applicant prior to any bottom-disturbing activities. Cable data are 

available from numerous sources and applicants will have access to this 

cable location data. This site-specific data will ensure that the cables are 

protected. As discussed in Chapters 1.6.10 and 1.6.14, individual 

surveys will require permits from the USACE, which will also assist in 

avoiding conflicts with G&G activities and the cable infrastructure. 

Madeleine 

Findley, North 

American 

Submarine Cable 

I-E-8 0.06 

Finally, BOEM should consider designating the FCC and the 

Team Telecom agencies as “coordinating agencies” for NEPA 

purposes. 

BOEM invited agencies, through the Federal Register Notice of Intent 

for the Programmatic EIS, to indicate their interest in being cooperating 

agencies. The potential cooperating agency mentioned, the FCC (Team 

Telecom is not a Federal agency), did not submit a request to act as 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-129

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Association cooperating agency as a result of the public notice. The Programmatic 

EIS provides a programmatic review of G&G survey activities; future 

site-specific evaluations will require additional NEPA evaluation. 

Preparation of those documents as well as permit applications would 

provide opportunities for future coordination and consultation with 

Federal agencies.

Frank Salley, The 

North American 

Submarine Cable 

Association 

I-E-2 0.01 

While I have not had a chance to do an in depth review of the 

recent PEIS associated with G&G Activities in Mid and South 

Atlantic Planning Areas, upon initial review there appears to be 

no mention of submarine telecommunications cables. After 

repeated request for inclusion in your planning efforts, the 

continuing disregard or oversight of this critical infrastructure 

in your public documentation is not acceptable. Can you 

provide direction on how the submarine cable industry can 

raise this issue to the appropriate level in the BOEM where we 

can be heard?

A cable infrastructure discussion has been added to Chapter 4.2.12.1.8, 

“Known Sea Bottom Obstructions” and added to the cumulative impact 

scenario in Chapter 3.6.12. BOEM recognizes the need for 

coordination to ensure that with placement of structures and 

bottom-disturbing activities are conducted in a manner that ensures the 

safety of the existing cable infrastructure. Each individual survey 

applicant will be required to identify the existing infrastructure to ensure 

protection of the cables. Site-specific data will be required by the 

applicant prior any bottom-disturbing activities. Cable data are available 

from numerous sources, from both online and purchased, and applicants 

will have access to this cable location data. This site-specific data will 

ensure that the cables are protected. As discussed in Chapters 1.6.10

and 1.6.14, individual surveys will require permits from the USACE, 

which will also assist in avoiding conflicts with G&G activities and the 

cable infrastructure. 

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.01 

Turbine spacing within wind farms. The Draft PEIS assumes, 

in Section 3.3.3.2, page 2-30, that between 14 and 45 turbines 

will be placed within each three-by-three nautical mile (nm) 

OCS block. This upper bound, though, assumes relatively tight 

turbine spacing of approximately one half nm apart while the 

lower uses more generous spacing of about one nm. The 

document also assumes 3.6 MW and 5.0 MW turbines with 

rotor diameters of 110 and 130 meters respectively. European 

experience to date suggests that turbines selected for projects 

are increasing in size, resulting in fewer turbines per project 

with more space between the machines than ever before – in 

other words, moving away from 0.5 nm and closer to 1.0. This 

would mean many fewer geotechnical surveys per OCS block 

than the upper-bound 45 now in the Draft PEIS (see Table 3-6).

BOEM recognizes that technological advances will lead to changes in 

how wind farms and other renewable energy projects are developed. 

The data used represents a general assessment of current practices to 

ensure all likely scenarios are covered under the programmatic analysis. 

Individual projects would be subject to a site-specific NEPA analysis as 

noted in Chapter 1.2 of the Programmatic EIS.

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.02 

Economically viable water depth. Page 3-14 of the Draft PEIS 

states, “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 [nautical miles]) from shore of 100 m 

(328 ft) water depth.” While a single demonstration floating 

wind turbine is operating in 200 m of water off the southwest 

The text has been revised throughout the document to address this 

comment.
L-130 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

coast of Norway7, EWEA reports that 22.8 m was the average 

depth for commercial projects (all fixed foundation) built last 

year and nearly every project under construction or online is in 

water shallower than or equal to 40 m deep.8 Furthermore, the 

eastern edge of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs exists at a water depth 

of approximately 30 m. Therefore, 100 m is currently not an 

economically, that is to say, commercially, viable water depth.

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.03 

Size and type of vessels for geotechnical studies. Page 3-17 and 

Table 3-9 indicate that a “small barge or a ship approximately 

20 m (65 ft) in length” (p. 3-17) would be used to conduct 

offshore wind geotechnical studies, but we believe that for 

open-ocean drilling, ships, not barges, of at least 60 m will 

most likely be the vessels that are used.

The text has been revised in Chapter 3.3.2.2 and Table 3-9 has been 

revised accordingly. 

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.04 

Meteorological equipment. In Section 3.3.2.3, page 3-18, the 

Draft PEIS assumes that meteorological (met) buoys, but not 

met towers, will be used on offshore wind projects. It says that 

while the renewable energy G&G surveys scenario “does not 

preclude the use of meteorological towers,” Table 3-6 shows, 

exclusively, between seven and 38 “bottom-founded 

monitoring buoys” as part of the Draft PEIS “Projected Levels 

of G&G Activities for Renewable Energy Site Characterization 

and Assessment.” While the advantages of met buoys, 

especially those with LiDAR technology, are clear, traditional 

offshore wind met towers are still being deployed in Europe 

and the Final Mid-Atlantic EA assumed the installation of up to 

12 met towers, along with 25 met buoys (p. vii).

As noted in the comment, the renewable energy G&G surveys scenario 

does not preclude the use of meteorological towers. The projected use of 

meteorological buoys was based on the best available information at the 

time of developing the renewable energy scenario (Chapter 3.3.3.2). 

Each survey will require a site-specific NEPA analysis to examine the 

impacts from the survey and the specific equipment planned to be 

deployed. 

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.05 

Survey methodologies. The description in the Draft PEIS of the 

offshore wind G&G activities is reasonable, however, the 

document should specifically address the benefits –

environmental and economic, for instance – of allowing 

flexibility in the G&G protocols. The assumption of only a 

single mobilization, for example, may not hold for developers 

pursuing staged surveys. We therefore believe that the Final 

PEIS should allow for survey flexibility so that the value of this 

PEIS can be more fully realized with respect to offshore 

renewable energy.

In the activity scenario for renewable energy (Chapter 3.3.3.2), BOEM 

made certain assumptions to estimate the overall activity level; however, 

nothing in the programmatic analysis precludes developers from 

proposing staged surveys for an individual project. BOEM will consider 

requirements on a site-specific basis when reviewing and analyzing 

individual plans. 

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition

I-E-5 0.06 

Not only are the impacts from offshore wind G&G far less than 

“major,” they are also significantly less than “moderate” and in 

nearly all subject areas less than “minor.”

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-131

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.07 

We strongly encourage BOEM to produce a Final PEIS 

reflecting the Final Mid-Atlantic EA, issued in January, since it 

is the most relevant and up-to-date document on the offshore 

wind issues in this subject PEIS. In that Final EA, BOEM 

makes a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) with 

respect to the potential effects of offshore wind leasing and site 

assessment and characterization activities in the Wind Energy 

Areas (WEAs) off the coasts of New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia.

The Final Mid-Atlantic EA is referenced where appropriate in the Final 

Programmatic EIS. Information about ongoing and planned MidAtlantic wind energy activities were incorporated into the description of 

G&G activities and the proposed action scenario in Chapter 3.0 of the 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM believes the analysis in the Programmatic 

EIS is consistent with the findings of the Mid Atlantic EA with respect 

to G&G activities in support of renewable energy development. 

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.08 

Survey activities, including geophysical, avian and bat surveys, 

will be required by BOEM under the new regulations, and 

some must take place year-round. Potential platforms for 

survey activities of this nature will require service by 

associated vessels. Measures such as exclusion zones and 

marine mammal monitoring, as recommended by NMFS, 

particularly during migration periods for mammals such as the 

north Atlantic right whale, would effectively minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. There is no evidence 

that the existing processes provide inadequate protection for 

marine mammals under the governing statutes and regulations.

Comment noted. 

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

I-E-5 0.09 

Bird impacts from fuel spills – much less than “moderate” for 

offshore wind - While it is extremely difficult, if not 

impossible, to tease out the impacts due only to offshore wind 

G&G activities, it is straightforward to determine that these 

potential impacts should be considered insignificant. First, the 

vessels performing the offshore wind HRG and geotechnical 

surveys would be “small” – less than 98 feet in length (Draft 

PEIS, pp. 3-16, 3-17) 11 – carrying just “several thousand 

gallons” of fuel, 2-3 orders of magnitude less than the quantity 

on “large seismic survey vessel[s]” (p. 3- 35). Second, the 

likelihood of a spill during offshore wind G&G surveys is 

remote; the Draft PEIS points out that a recorded oil/fuel spill 

“has never been recorded” in more than 54,000 nautical miles 

(100,000 km) of seismic surveys funded by the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) (p. 3-36). Third, the Final MidAtlantic EA rated the reasonably foreseeable impacts on water 

quality to be “minor,” the risk of a spill “small,” and the 

impacts “in the unlikely event of a spill” “minimal... since the 

spill would very likely be small, and would dissipate and 

biodegrade within a short time” (p. viii). The Final MidAtlantic EA also found “no threat of significant impacts” and 

Although different size vessels may be used for the offshore survey 

programs and they will carry different volumes of fuels, as noted in 

Chapter 3.5.2.1, the accidental fuel spill size is based on U.S. Coast 

Guard data and for the purposes of this analysis, the spill scenario 

evaluated was a release of 1.2-7.1 bbl of diesel fuel caused by either a 

vessel collision or an accident during fuel transfer. This is certainly well 

within the volume carried by the smaller offshore survey vessels, and has 

the potential to occur even from these smaller vessels. The likelihood of 

a spill is acknowledged as very low (Chapter 4.2.4.3), but is indicated 

that depending on the location and timing of an oil spill, the impact level 

would vary and could result in negligible-moderate impacts for 

shorebirds, waterfowl, and seabird species. However, since the 

populations of piping plover, roseate tern, and red knot are already in 

peril, if an accidental fuel spill occurred that affected any of these 

species or their food supply, then, and only then, would the impact be 

considered moderate since these birds are very susceptible to oiling. The 

level of impact to bird species from a potential spill is based on the 

location and timing of the spill and what species of birds would be 

affected. In most instances, the impact from a spill would be considered 

negligible, but if a spill were to occur in a critical habitat at a time when 

migrating birds were present for feeding, the impact level would increase 
L-132 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

“negligible” impacts to birds from a variety of sources, 

including “accidental fuel releases” (p. ix).

to minor and if one of the threatened bird species were impacted, the 

impact level could increase to moderate. Birds are very susceptible to 

impacts if oiling does occur, for this reason the sliding impact levels 

were provided and is based on location and timing of a spill.

Doug Pfeister, 

Offshore Wind 

Development 

Coalition 

IPHWD

E-1 

0.01 

I just wanted to compare the document, and I haven't gone 

through it extensively, with the final EA that came out for the 

Mid-Atlantic -- for the Mid-Atlantic wind energy areas on the 

site survey work that would be going on there. So I wanted to -

- if you could respond to that, that would be great.· If you could 

talk about the comparisons between the two documents.· If you 

can't, that's just something I would like to flag, that those two 

documents, unless there's good reason, should be consistent 

with one another.

Information about the Mid-Atlantic Wind Energy EA, as well as the 

document itself, can be found at http://www.boem.gov/RenewableEnergy-Program/Smart-from-the-Start/Index.aspx. The Final MidAtlantic EA is referenced where appropriate in the Final Programmatic 

EIS. Information about ongoing and planned Mid-Atlantic wind energy 

activities were incorporated into the description of G&G activities and 

the proposed action scenario in Chapter 3.0 of the Programmatic EIS.

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.01 

The proposed Alternatives (A and B) would place impractical, 

scientifically unjustified, and burdensome requirements upon 

the public interests that utilize the MM sites for public shore 

protection (beach restoration) projects. The DPEIS is unclear 

and inconsistent in terms of recognizing the distinctions 

between (a) high-frequency, low-energy survey devices utilized 

for MM sites versus airguns and other lower-frequency/highenergy devices, and (b) restrictions for MM sites versus Oil & 

Gas (O&G) and Renewable Energy (RE) sites.

The Programmatic EIS makes clear distinctions between the active 

acoustic sources used for non-airgun HRG surveys versus airgun 

surveys. The document has been reviewed to ensure that these 

distinctions are presented accurately and consistently. Chapter 3.0

presents separate descriptions of G&G activities and equipment for oil 

and gas related surveys (Chapter 3.2), renewable energy (Chapter 3.3), 

and marine minerals (Chapter 3.4). Airguns and electromechanical 

sources are described separately in Appendix D, and separate incidental 

take calculations for airgun seismic surveys and non airgun HRG 

surveys are presented in Appendix E. Separate mitigation protocols are 

presented for airgun seismic surveys (Chapter 2.1.3.1) and non-airgun 

HRG surveys below and above 200 kHz (Chapter 2.1.3.2). These 

protocols have been revised in the Final Programmatic EIS to clarify the 

differences. See Appendix A for further information about HRG 

surveys in the NARW closure area. BOEM believes that the 

requirements included in the proposed action are feasible, not 

burdensome, and are supported by explicit scientific reasoning. The 

rationale for the time-area closures and survey-specific mitigation 

protocols is provided in Appendix C. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-133

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.02 

The DPEIS fails to demonstrate adverse impacts to marine life 

from the high-frequency, low-energy devices commonly used 

to develop and monitor MM sites. The claimed (potential) 

impacts to marine turtles are speculative, at best. The DPEIS 

analysis and conclusions are based upon computer models of 

sound without adequate calibration and verification. The array 

of sound sources did not even consider the commonly used 

low-energy, dual-frequency fathometer; yet the DPEIS 

proposes restrictions on its use in tandem with all other 

equipment. 

BOEM analyzed potential impacts on marine life using the best available 

scientific information. BOEM conducted acoustic modeling of 

representative electromechanical sources often used for marine minerals

HRG surveys (Appendix D) and estimated incidental takes of marine 

mammal species found in the AOI (Appendix E) using credible 

scientific models. Information about the assumptions, data inputs, and 

scientific basis for the models is presented in Appendices D and E. The 

modeling results indicate that non airgun HRG surveys may result 

incidental takes of marine mammals. We agree that impacts on sea 

turtles are especially difficult to predict, as already noted in the 

Programmatic EIS; however, national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requires us to make a good faith attempt to estimate those impacts using 

the best available scientific data. Finally, Appendix D of the 

Programmatic EIS has been revised to briefly address fathometers as 

noted in the comment. Under the HRG Survey Protocol (see Chapter 

2.1.3.2 and Appendix C, Section 3.3.3), requirements such as the 

exclusion zone and startup/shutdown conditions apply only to HRG 

surveys in which one or more active acoustic sound sources will be 

operating at frequencies less than 200 kHz.

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.03 

The proposed calendar restrictions on activities in Alternatives 

A and B would limit the days available to perform surveys to 

impractically small windows of time – particularly given the 

vagaries of ocean weather and the need to identify periods of 

consistently calm seas to perform the surveys. Alternative B, 

for example, presents impossibly narrow windows to perform 

MM surveys offshore of Brevard County: two weeks in late 

April and two weeks in early November, of which the latter is 

typically unusable because of nor’easter storms.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the NARW time–area 

closure and related HRG Survey Protocol has been clarified and the 

generic case-by-case language has been removed. See Appendix A for 

further information about HRG surveys in the NARW closure area. As a 

result of the clarification time- area closures would generally not be 

applied to surveys using non-airgun HRG acoustic sources. Those 

clarifications have been finalized with NMFS through formal Section 7

consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (Appendix A). 

Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for detailed survey 

protocols. We have also identified the review and approval process that 

would be utilized for site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5. 

Specific to nesting sea turtles off Brevard County, if non-airgun HRG 

sources with sources below 1.6 kHz would be restricted within this area 

from May 1 to October 31. HRG non-airgun surveys with sources above 

1.6 kHz would not be subject to the sea turtle time-area closure. 

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.04 

Through its lease agreements, BOEM requires pre- and postconstruction surveys of MM sites. For unjustified reasons, 

BOEM appears to be increasingly seeking (1) tighter 

restrictions on timing of those surveys relative to construction, 

and (2) time-intensive higher-resolution survey methods. 

BOEM cannot require and expect its lease partners to conduct 

increasingly complex surveys (presumably for the benefit of 

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS the NARW time – area 

closure and related HRG Survey Protocol has been clarified and the 

generic case-by-case language has been removed. See Appendix A for 

further information about HRG surveys in the NARW closure area. As a 

result of the clarification, time- area closures would generally not be 

applied to surveys using non-airgun HRG acoustic sources. Those 

clarifications have been finalized with NMFS through formal Section 7 
L-134 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

BOEM) amidst increasingly onerous and unrealistic 

restrictions. It is difficult and costly enough attempting to 

comply with existing restrictions and expectations for the 

development and monitoring of these MM sites, let alone 

dealing with new layers of restrictions and review.

consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (Appendix A). 

Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated survey 

protocols. We have also identified the review and approval process that 

would be utilized for site/permit-specific activities in Chapter 1.7.5. A 

discussion of Adaptive Management has been added to Chapter 1.7.6

and Appendix C, Section 7, please see that text for an explanation of 

how future management changes will be incorporated into the program. 

Briefly, BOEM and NMFS will consider future data on the efficacy of 

mitigation measures to adjust mitigation requirements based on the best 

available information at that time.

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.05 

The proposed requirements to put marine observers aboard the 

small vessels used for MM surveys, and to suspend surveys 

when animals are sighted, are unjustified and onerous. If these 

requirements are justified and reasonable, then should not all 

recreational vessels and merchant ships be equipped with 

marine observers and/or be required to turn off their 

fathometers when operating in federal waters? What defensible 

evidence or rational justification is there that a 25-ft survey 

vessel operating at trawling (survey) speeds and surveying with 

high-frequency, low-energy devices will impact marine animals 

on the Outer Continental Shelf?

BOEM is responsible for ensuring that activities it authorizes are in 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the ESA and 

MMPA. That is the basis for the mitigation requirements included in the 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM does not regulate the use of fathometers or 

other devices associated with recreation or commercial navigation.

Chapter 4.2.2.2 discusses the effects of sounds on marine mammals, 

particularly when those sounds are within the animals hearing range and 

Appendix H provides a review of marine mammal hearing and 

sensitivity. The modeling results in Appendix E indicate non-airgun 

HRG surveys may result in incidental takes of marine mammals.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. See Appendix A for further information about HRG surveys 

in the NARW closure area. For non-airgun HRG surveys the type and 

number of observers aboard any vessel will be dependent on the action 

of the vessel or type of acoustic source utilized during a survey. In some 

cases only visual observers will be required on board to implement 

vessel strike measures. In other cases, PSOs will be required to monitor 

an acoustic exclusion zone during survey operations. Please refer to 

Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for updated survey protocols. The sound 

modeling reported in Appendix D and the incidental take calculations in 

Appendix E indicate that the suite of equipment during non airgun HRG 

surveys can result in incidental taking of marine mammals, for which 

reasonable and prudent mitigations are available. BOEM believes that 

the PSO requirement is feasible; the HRG Survey Protocol (see Chapter 

2.1.3.2 and Appendix C, Section 3.3.3) notes that operators “may 

engage trained third party observers, utilize crew members after training 

as observers, or use a combination of both third party and crew 

observers.” 

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.06 Has BOEM considered the very significant increase in costs to the public to provide such observers and to shut down a survey 

The Programmatic EIS has been structured to evaluate reasonable 

alternatives that include practicable mitigation which would avoid or 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-135

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

for at least 30 minutes every time an animal is observed? The 

beach projects for which MM sand is used, at least in Florida, 

are constructed in the public interest and with 100% public 

(Federal, State, and Local) funds. Any increased restriction on 

OCS activities for these public projects must consider the fiscal 

costs of these restrictions to the public relative to the real 

benefit to environmental protection that will be received. At 

least in terms of MM sites, the proposed Alternatives A and B 

do not make such consideration of the public interest.

minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human 

environment (40 CFR § 1502.1). A cost-benefit analysis is not required 

to satisfy NEPA analysis requirements, particularly if there are important 

qualitative considerations (40 CFR 1502.23). However, an EIS should 

indicate considerations, including factors not related to environmental 

quality, which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision 

(40 CFR § 1502.23). Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS,

the HRG Survey Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case 

language has been removed. See Appendix A for further information 

about HRG surveys in the NARW closure area. For non-airgun HRG 

surveys the type and number of observers aboard any vessel will be 

dependent on the action of the vessel or type of acoustic source utilized 

during a survey. In some cases only visual observers will be required on 

board to implement vessel strike avoidance measures. Visual observers

may be crew members. In cases where only visual observers are 

required, shutdown related to acoustic sources would not be required. In 

cases where non-airgun HRG acoustic exclusion zone monitoring is 

required, more specialized PSOs will be required. 

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.07 

The draft PEIS is ambiguous in terms of what G&G activities 

are exempt from restriction for MM sites, and how exceptions 

will be made. Throughout the document (say, for one example, 

Section 2.1.2.3), it is suggested that exemptions apply to highresolution (non airgun) surveys for RE and MM sites, but then 

it is stated that surveys will be “reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis, and authorization may include additional mitigation and 

monitoring requirements....” It is therefore not clear what is 

and is not to be allowed for G&G surveys of MM sites, nor 

what burdensome process might be involved in gaining 

approvals for surveys under either Alternatives A or B. It is 

clear, however, that having to submit requests – and awaiting 

BOEM staff time to review requests – for high-resolution (non 

airgun) surveys of MM sites is onerous, costly, and of no net 

benefit to the environment or the public interest.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the HRG Survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. See Appendix A for further information about HRG surveys 

in the NARW closure area. The Programmatic EIS has been revised to 

more clearly and consistently indicate what equipment types are subject 

to the time-area closures and mitigation protocols. Only prospecting 

surveys on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) undertaken by another 

Federal agency or Federal agency contractor are exempt from BOEM’s 

G&G authorization and review process. However, those activities are 

subject to the same environmental laws and regulations, and the action 

agency is responsible for demonstrating required compliance. All other 

G&G prospecting surveys and/or geophysical surveys related to the use 

of OCS sand resources, including pre and post construction bathymetric 

surveys undertaken by any project proponent, are subject to 

environmental review and authorization by BOEM.

Please see response to comment I-E-9:0.03. In addition, over time 

mitigation measures may be further refined. Through the Adaptive 

Management process as outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, 

Section 7, BOEM may determine that exemptions are warranted for 

certain equipment or survey types. We are aware that the permitting 

process for HRG-type surveys can be lengthy. In the meantime 

operators are well advised to inquire of the agency as to expectations and 

to allow long lead times for permit processing.
L-136 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.08a 

I strongly urge BOEM to consider the following 

recommendations: 1. Adopt Alternative C and retain the status 

quo for MM surveys.

Comment noted.

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.08b 

2. If Alternative C is untenable owing to the political pressure 

to address O&G sites, then adopt Alternative A – but very 

clearly identify those G&G methods and devices that are 

automatically exempt from additional restrictions, at least for 

MM sites. This includes exemptions from calendar restrictions 

and observers.

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS, the HRG survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. As a result of the clarification time- area closures would 

generally not be applied to surveys using non-airgun HRG acoustic 

sources. See Appendix A for further information about HRG surveys in 

the NARW closure area. Those clarifications have been finalized with 

NMFS through formal Section 7 consultation and the issuance of a 

Biological Opinion (Appendix A). The Programmatic EIS has been 

revised to ensure that it clearly and consistently indicates what G&G 

methods and equipment are subject to time-area closures and other 

mitigation requirements. Please refer to Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C

for updated survey protocols. Please see response to comment I-E9:0.03.

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.08c 

3. Exemptions for high-resolution G&G activities for MM sites 

might specify types of allowable equipment and methods but 

should additionally specify the minimum frequency and 

maximum energy level, to avoid confusion or uncertainty 

regarding what is and is not exempt equipment.

The Programmatic EIS has been revised to ensure that it clearly and 

consistently indicates what G&G methods and equipment (and where 

applicable, frequencies and energy levels) are subject to time-area 

closures and other mitigation requirements. Under the HRG Survey 

Protocol (see Chapter 2.1.3.2 and Appendix C, Section 3.3.3) 

requirements such as the exclusion zone and startup/shutdown conditions 

apply only to HRG surveys in which one or more active acoustic sound 

sources will be operating at frequencies less than 200 kHz. Please see 

response to comment I-E-90.03.

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.08d 

4. Exemptions for listed equipment/methods should be 

automatic and not require case-by-case review and approval. 

Review and approval otherwise burdens both BOEM staff and 

the public. 

Since the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS the HRG survey 

Protocol has been clarified and the case-by-case language has been 

removed. See Appendix A for further information about HRG surveys 

in the NARW closure area. We have also identified the review and 

approval process that would be utilized for site/permit-specific activities 

in Chapter 1.7.5. 

Kevin Bodge, 

Olsen Associates I-E-9 0.08e 5. Alternative B should not be adopted nor further considered. Comment noted.

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Representatives (sorted by Organization)

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.01 

Seismic and other oil and gas G&G has caused no harm under 

current, longstanding regulation by BOEM. In sum, past 

regulation of OCS oil and gas G&G has adequately protected 

the environment. With the possible exception of reasonable 

temporal and zoning restrictions in order to protect the 

endangered right whale, there is no reason to believe a different 

approach is required in the Atlantic.

The mitigation protocol used in the Programmatic EIS is built largely on 

(and very similar to) the protocol used over a multiyear period in the 

GOM. There are biological and physical differences between the 

Atlantic and the GOM that warrant adjustments to the mitigation 

protocol to further reduce the potential for impacts. For example, several 

endangered mysticete whales, including the NARW, are present in the 

Atlantic but are rare or extralimital in the Gulf of Mexico. The GOM 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-137

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

protocol does not apply to water depths less than 200 m (656 ft) in the 

Gulf of Mexico west of 88oW where most of the marine mammal

population consists of two species (bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic 

spotted dolphins); this depth limitation was not deemed applicable in the 

Atlantic protocol. Also, BOEM conducted extensive modeling of 

acoustic transmission characteristics of the water column in the Atlantic 

and used that region specific information to evaluate the adequacy of the 

exclusion zone required by the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol. BOEM 

believes it is reasonable to adapt the mitigation protocol to account for 

the biological and physical conditions in different regions, and the 

Agency has previously included different requirements for seismic 

survey permits in regions other than the GOM (e.g., Alaska).

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.02 

The DPEIS proposes a new Draft Protocol for regulating 

seismic airgun surveys. The CRE asks BOEM to confirm or 

deny that the DPEIS’ Draft Protocol is only proposed for the 

Atlantic, and is not intended for any other water body.

The seismic airgun protocol presented in the Programmatic EIS applies 

to and is intended for G&G activities in the Atlantic.

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.03 

Acoustic Integration Model (“AIM”). There is no public 

record showing that AIM has been peer reviewed for its 

proposed application in the Atlantic PEIS. BOEM should 

identify in the public record each and every AIM peer review 

that they believe has occurred. BOEM should allow public 

comment on those and all other peer reviews relevant to the 

DPEIS. All AIM peer reviewers should be advised of the 

Information Quality Act (“IQA”) requirements applicable to 

BOEM. NMFS’ Peer Review Report for AIM states that the 

AIM input data on behavioral effects are inadequate. BOEM 

also repeatedly states that adequate input data do not exist for 

most of the marine mammals that AIM models. Consequently, 

before BOEM uses AIM to estimate Takes BOEM should 

conduct external peer review of AIM in order to determine, 

among other issues, whether the behavioral effects data input 

into the model are adequate to estimate Takes.

AIM© received a peer review from the Center for Independent Experts 

(CIE), a process that was initiated by NMFS. This was a 3-day in-person 

review, which was preceded by document evaluation and followed by a 

review period after which each panel member prepared a report. Since 

then, AIM© results have been included in several publicly reviewed, 

Federal agency-approved environmental compliance documents (e.g., 

U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 2012; National Science Foundation and U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2011).

With respect to concerns about inputs to the animal movement model, 

the CIE panel reported that “It was generally agreed by the Panel that the 

animal movement methods used in AIM© were appropriate given the 

level of available data. The qualifier is important here. The Panel did 

not perceive a problem with AIM’s© animal movement methods. They 

do acknowledge a problem with the absence of the type of data needed to 

realistically simulate animal movement within AIM.”

The state of knowledge of marine animal behavior has improved greatly 

since 2006. MAI has continued to review new data reports on animal 

movements and update its database of animal movement parameters. 

For example, one of the concerns of the CIE panel was the ‘lumping’ of 

species into behavioral groups due to a lack of species-specific data. 

Since the review, sufficient data have been published on pilot whales to 

allow them to be represented as a separate modeling entity where they 

were previously ‘lumped’ in the blackfish group. There is also now 

enough data to accurately model the behavior of sea turtles.

Furthermore, following best modeling practices, the values of the 
L-138 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

behavioral input parameters are included in the environmental 

compliance reports in which they are used, along with the peer-reviewed 

published literature from which they were derived. Therefore, the reader 

has the ability to evaluate the original research, review the use of the 

data to derive the behavioral input parameters, and reach their own 

conclusion on the validity of those input values. This was done for 

BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS.

Finally, the animal movement model itself has been updated and 

improved. An example is the ability to assign a probability value for 

each behavioral state. Thus, if a species makes frequent shallow dives 

and occasional deep dives, the animal can be probabilistically 

programmed to reflect that behavior.

In conclusion, the structure of the AIM© model was found to be 

appropriate by the Center for Independent Experts. The model has 

continued to be refined and improved since then. The animal movement 

parameter values have been continuously updated and still represent the 

best available data for impact analysis.

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.04 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (“PAM”) should be required in 

the Atlantic, and PAMGUARD should be encouraged. PAM is 

already being required in most NMFS regulation of seismic, 

and it is “strongly encouraged” by BOEM’s NTL 2012 G0-2, 

so this is not a significant change in current regulation.

Alternative B which requires PAM for airgun surveys and may be used 

as an additional monitoring method for night-time or periods of reduced 

visibility for HRG surveys using sources operating at frequencies at or 

below 200 kHz has been identified by BOEM as the Agency’s Preferred 

Alternative. PAM has been incorporated into the Seismic Airgun and 

HRG Survey Protocols to improve detection of marine mammals and 

further reduce potential impact to the NARW and other marine 

mammals. In addition, a separate section on PAM has been added to the 

Programmatic EIS (Appendix C, Section 3.2.2.6). Given the 10-year 

time period covered by the Programmatic EIS, BOEM does not believe it 

is appropriate to recommend specific PAM software at a programmatic 

level.

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.05 

The DPEIS, and all BOEM information disseminations, must 

meet IQA requirements. These IQA requirements apply to any 

outside or third-party information that BOEM uses or relies on.

Comment noted.

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.06 

BOEM will have to prepare a new Information Collection 

Request (“ICR”) for public comment and for Office of 

Management and Budget (“OMB”) review before BOEM could 

regulate seismic in a manner that is significantly different from 

current regulation under NTL No. 2007-G02.

Comment noted.

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.07 

BOEM should proceed with Alternative A in the PEIS, but 

should do so by incorporating all of the above 

recommendations.

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-139

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Jim Tozzi, Center 

for Regulatory 

Effectiveness 

NGOE-8 0.08 

BOEM SHOULD MAKE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS 

AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. CRE urges BOEM to 

embrace a more transparent process in conducting the Atlantic 

PEIS by making the public comments available to the public 

immediately after the comment period closes. 

Public Comments were posted on the BOEM website at http://

www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx on 

November 26, 2012. 

Heather Stafford 

(Saffert), Clean 

Ocean Action 

NGOPHAC15 

0.01 

Of the many scientific concerns I have for this EIS, I'm most 

troubled by the under estimation of impact and the many data it 

gives. For example, there are scientific data, some identified, 

that I've brought to the attention of this agency over thirty years 

ago on understanding the impact of seismic surveys on our 

environment.· These data gaps are frustratingly left unfulfilled 

even after BOEM, EOI, and other agency scientists themselves 

called for more research intruding on the seasonal distribution 

of the ocean communities, migration impact, spawning periods,

biological responses to air damage, and overall impact for 

species ranging in size from tiny plants to whales. 

Information's lacking on the impact of noise on turtles, whales, 

fish, dolphins, and more.

BOEM prepared the Programmatic EIS using the best available data and 

included conservative assumptions to avoid underestimating impacts. 

BOEM is involved in several ongoing programs to improve existing data 

for marine mammals and underwater noise as discussed in Appendix E. 

Future site-specific NEPA analyses will use the best data available at 

that time. Chapter 4.1.4.1 of the Programmatic EIS discusses 

unavailable and incomplete information as required by NEPA. For each 

resource in Chapter 4.0, the Programmatic EIS notes where data are 

unavailable or incomplete.

BOEM is currently involved in multiple efforts to improve information.

For example, BOEM has partnered with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other organizations to fund 

projects to improve biological information on protected species in the 

U.S. Atlantic. Two notable programs include the following: 

• Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) 

– This is an effort to collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the 

seasonal distribution and abundance of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds), marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard 

surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters. The project will also 

collect similar data at finer scales at several sites of particular interest to 

NMFS and BOEM. Importantly, AMAPPS also seeks to assess the 

population size of surveyed species at regional scales and develop 

models and associated tools to translate these survey data into seasonal, 

spatially explicit density estimates incorporating habitat characteristics 

(see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/protspp/mainpage/ AMAPPS/

index.html and http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/ Environmental_

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/AT-10-x11.pdf). 

• BOEM, working with NOAA, has developed the Multipurpose Marine 

Cadastre, an integrated marine information system that provides legal, 

physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic 

information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-GasEnergy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-Purpose-Marine-CadastreMap-Viewer/Index.aspx). See Appendix G.
L-140 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Heather Stafford 

(Saffert), Clean 

Ocean Action 

NGOPHAC15 

0.02 

The determination of air gun impact is highly questionable in 

this EIS.· There are substantial reasons for concern about the 

harm that air gun blasts have on tiny, little creatures, to plants, 

to whales.

Chapters 4.2 and 4.3 provide a discussion of the potential impact of 

airguns on marine resources in the Area of Interest. 

Heather Stafford 

(Saffert), Clean 

Ocean Action 

NGOPHAC15 

0.03 

All of these impacts really must be considered and taken 

seriously. In 2010 when BOEM first proposed testing we 

asked BOEM to conduct a base line survey of noise levels in 

the region so that the environmental impact could be 

differentiated from existing noise such as from shipping and 

Department of Defense testing and training activities.

BOEM and NMFS appreciate the comment. BOEM continues to fund 

research, including Characterization and Potential Impacts of Noise 

Producing Construction and Operation Activities on the OCS, which can 

be seen at http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/ Environmental_

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/GM-09-11.pdf.

Heather Stafford 

(Saffert), Clean 

Ocean Action

NGOPHAC15

0.04 

We also asked BOEM to assess cumulative impact on adding 

seismic surveys to this already noisy ocean region. The only 

response was to affirm that data was lacking.

The cumulative activities scenario in Chapter 3.0 has been revised to 

include additional activities, and the cumulative activities analysis in 

Chapter 4.0 has been revised and expanded to address this issue.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.01 

We believe that the DPEIS not only fails to meet the 

environmental review standards prescribed by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), but fails to an extent that 

cannot be remedied through the issuance of a final EIS. 

Accordingly, if BOEM intends to allow oil and gas exploration 

in the Atlantic, we believe that the document must be 

thoroughly revised and reissued as a draft for further public 

review and comment.

BOEM was directed by Congress to develop a Programmatic EIS that 

analyzes impacts resulting from G&G survey activities in specific 

planning areas of the Atlantic. This document is designed and 

constructed to accomplish that analysis. The procedural steps required 

by NEPA have been followed. A 60-day public comment period was 

subsequently extended by 30 days. An Agency Preferred Alternative 

was not identified in the Draft Programmatic EIS because BOEM wished 

to examine the aggregate comment record before making that decision. 

BOEM has presented a rationale for how the Agency chose the Preferred 

Alternative reported in the Final Programmatic EIS. Under NEPA 

regulations at 40 CFR § 1502.9(c), agencies shall prepare supplements to 

either draft or final environmental impact statements if: (i) the agency 

makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or (ii) there are significant new circumstances 

or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the 

proposed action or its impacts. Neither of these conditions is the case, 

and therefore, we do not believe a Draft Programmatic EIS needs to be 

reissued. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.02 

NEPA dictates that BOEM must employ rigorous standards of 

environmental review, including a fair and objective 

description of potential impacts, a comprehensive analysis of 

all reasonable alternatives, and a thorough delineation of 

measures to mitigate harm. Unfortunately, the DPEIS falls far 

short of these standards. Instead, it provides an analysis that on 

almost every crucial point is disconnected from the relevant 

science, in a way that consistently tends to understate impacts 

and, consequently, to rationalize BOEM’s proposed action.

BOEM disagrees with this assessment of the Programmatic EIS. For the 

preparation of the Programmatic EIS, BOEM included current and new 

information to inform the analyses. We also note that the EPA review of 

the document states that “the Draft Programmatic EIS provides an 

adequate discussion of the potential environmental impacts and we have 

not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive 

changes.” 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-141

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.03 

BOEM relies on a 13-year-old, cookie-cutter threshold for 

harm that was recently castigated by some of the world’s 

leading experts in this field as “overly simplified, scientifically 

outdated, and artificially rigid” – leading to a serious 

misconception of the scale of the impact area and a massive 

underestimate of marine mammal take.

The "cookie-cutter threshold" referred to was established by NMFS as a 

standard to define takings under MMPA and is still used by NMFS for 

that purpose. It is the standard used by the regulatory agency having 

jurisdiction. In addition, we calculated incidental takes using the 

Southall et al. (2007) criteria (see Appendix E) and considered this 

information in the impact analysis in Chapter 4.2.2. The Southall 

criteria were developed by a group of acoustics and marine mammal 

experts, published in a peer-reviewed paper, and remain reasonable 

based on our literature update in Appendix H. We note in particular that 

Level A incidental takes (injury) would be much lower using the more 

recent (Southall) criteria and therefore we do not agree that use of the 

NMFS criteria results in a “massive underestimate” of marine mammal 

takes.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.04 

The DPEIS fails to assess the far-reaching cumulative impacts 

of airgun blasting on marine mammal communication, despite 

the availability of Cornell and NOAA models, simply stating 

without any discernible support (and contrary to the literature) 

that masking effects on marine mammals would be “minor.” 

The text in Chapters 3.6.11 and 4.2.2.4 has been added and revised to 

better address cumulative impacts.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.05 

The DPEIS fails to incorporate new studies, accepted by the 

Navy and other state and federal agencies and incorporated into 

their recent impact statements, demonstrating that marine 

mammals are more susceptible to hearing loss than previously 

believed. 

Please see the response to NGO-E-1:0.60. The cumulative impact 

analysis in the Programmatic EIS has been revised and expanded to 

address this issue. The revised analysis explicitly addresses the 

incidental take numbers for the proposed action as well as the Navy's 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) EIS findings and other 

reasonably foreseeable activities. Information about activities and 

potential impacts (including incidental take) from Navy activities has 

been added to the cumulative activities scenario in Chapter 3.6.7, and 

the cumulative impact sections in Chapter 4.0 have been reviewed and 

updated where appropriate to address the range of activities included in 

the cumulative scenario. The Programmatic EIS is using these NMFS 

thresholds while discussing the Southall criteria as a way of comparison 

in the document. While other thresholds may not be peer reviewed, until 

the established thresholds are changed, BOEM must follow existing 

thresholds. BOEM recognizes that literature suggests that there is a need 

for a change to the standard and that a new standard may be provided. 

When it is provided, BOEM will be responsive to those changes at that 

time and each individual survey would utilize the new thresholds. Until 

then BOEM must use the existing, prescribed, and regulated thresholds. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.06 

In lieu of a serious analysis of cumulative impacts, the DPEIS 

strings together a few unsupported and indeed baseless 

statements, ignoring not only its own marine mammal take 

numbers but also failing to consider such patently foreseeable 

The cumulative impact analysis in the Programmatic EIS has been 

revised and expanded to address this issue. The revised analysis 

explicitly addresses the incidental take numbers for the proposed action 

as well as the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) EIS 
L-142 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

impacts as the Navy’s substantial takes of the same populations 

over the same period (just analyzed in the Navy’s Draft EIS for 

the Atlantic Fleet).

findings and other reasonably foreseeable activities. Information about 

activities and potential impacts (including incidental take) from Navy 

activities has been added to the cumulative activities scenario in 

Chapter 3.6.7, and the cumulative impact sections in Chapter 4.0 have 

been reviewed and updated where appropriate to address the range of 

activities included in the cumulative scenario. Further, BOEM is 

actively coordinating with the Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy in 

particular, to avoid respective activities and ensure thorough monitoring 

of the environment. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.07 

Despite acknowledging that airguns can cause wide-scale 

displacement of fish species – disrupting spawning and 

reproduction, altering migration routes, and impairing feeding, 

and dramatically reducing catch rates – it assumes without 

support that effects on both fish and fisheries would be 

localized and “minor.”

The text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.5.2.2, 4.2.7.2.2, and 4.2.8.2.2

to address this comment. The conclusion is based on literature review 

and expert analysis.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.08 

The fundamental problem is that the agency simply does not 

take the problem of cumulative, sublethal impacts seriously; 

and misprising the scale and potential significance of the 

impacts, it fails to consider alternatives and mitigation adequate 

to address it.

The text has been added to Chapter 3.6 and in the individual resource 

sections of Chapter 4.0, to better address cumulative impacts, including 

sublethal impacts and their potential significance.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.09 

The DPEIS does not even attempt to identify biologically 

important areas within the enormous activity area, aside from 

critical habitat for the right whale and loggerhead sea turtles. It 

does not attempt to reduce the extraordinary amount of activity 

by restricting exploration from areas that are unlikely to be 

leased, beginning with important Navy training areas, or to 

reduce the environmental footprint of the activity that does 

occur. It fails even to devise a long-term monitoring plan, 

which is a staple of Navy mitigation and essential to any 

meaningful adaptive management program.

Chapter 4.0 provides a complete assessment of the biological resources 

within the activity area and identifies biologically important areas such 

as critical habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular 

Concern, Marine Protected Areas, and fishery management areas. In the 

current phase it is premature to implement survey activity restrictions in 

the AOI. The scope of individual seismic surveys is not determined by 

BOEM but by the survey operators who have submitted applications 

based on what they believe industry interest may be, and what data sets 

they may be able to market. The analyses that will be needed for BOEM 

permit conditions and NMFS’ MMPA permit conditions will further 

mitigate at the project-specific level and will also reevaluate biologically 

important areas as well as other activities occurring in the area. A 

discussion of Adaptive Management has been added in Chapter 1.7.6

and Appendix C, Section 7. As part of its Adaptive Management 

program, BOEM intends to review the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures based on monitoring data collected by PSOs during G&G 

surveys or other information. Further, restricting G&G exploration at 

this time from certain areas does not meet the purpose and need of this 

Programmatic EIS.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.10 Supports Alternative C. Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-143

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.11 

BOEM must correct the fundamental errors in the present 

DPEIS. Merely revising the draft into a final EIS is not 

sufficient, because its pervasive flaws and omissions have 

effectively deprived federal and state agencies, the scientific 

community, and the general public of their statutory right to an 

objective description of the activity and a meaningful 

opportunity to comment.

The public, all affected parties, and any party taking an interest had a 94

day comment period for the Draft Programmatic EIS, in addition to the 

initial scoping of the Programmatic EIS in 2010. We do not agree that 

Federal and State agencies, the scientific community, and the general 

public have been deprived of their statutory right to meaningfully 

comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS, and we do not believe that our 

approach was in some way fundamentally in error. We also note that the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) review of the 

document states that “the Draft Programmatic EIS provides an adequate 

discussion of the potential environmental impacts and we have not 

identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive 

changes.” There will be additional opportunities to comment at the 

project-specific stage when NMFS advertises receipt of applications and 

request for comments for Marine Mammal Protection Act permitting.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.12 

BOEM should assess alternatives that place meaningful caps or 

limits on offshore activities, to reduce disruptions of marine 

mammal behavior.

BOEM and NMFS have considered various mitigation measures, 

including time-area closures to limit offshore activities, which is a cap or 

limit of activities and would reduce overall sound input. These 

mitigation measures can be seen in Chapters 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 and 

Appendix C. Please see the response to comment NGO-E-10:0.36 

regarding activity cap or limits. Additional and different mitigation 

measures that may reduce overall sound input may be considered during 

site-specific analyses.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.13 

BOEM should eliminate duplication of survey effort by 

prescribing or incentivizing the use of common surveyors, 

particularly for the extensive 2-D surveys expected within the 

first five years of activity.

BOEM has considered the reduction of duplication of effort as a 

mitigation measure to reduce the overall sound input, for this Atlantic 

G&G Programmatic EIS, as well as in other forums such as the 

Mitigation and Monitoring Workshop BOEM hosted in November 2012, 

which was aimed at measures for the GOM, but could also be applied in 

other regions. The reason for currently eliminating an alternative to 

eliminate duplicative survey effort has been clarified in Chapter 2.5.5. 

However, this mitigation measure may be considered again during sitespecific analyses.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.14 

BOEM should develop alternatives for the development and 

implementation of “greener” exploration technology.

We have revised and updated the discussion of non-airgun alternatives in 

Chapter 2.5.6 and Appendix C, Section 6.0. BOEM does seek to 

promote the development and implementation of alternatives to the 

impulse airgun. However, this Programmatic EIS is not the appropriate 

outlet to compel the development and implementation of “greener” 

technologies. NEPA alternatives must be developed to meet the 

Agency’s purpose and need. BOEM evaluated a non airgun alternative 

in Chapter 2.5.6.8, and found that it would not meet the Agency’s 

purpose and need because none of the non airgun alternatives currently 

are economically feasible or technically viable for commercial 
L-144 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

deployment; all of them being in various stages of development. 

Evaluations of recent technologies are undertaken by BOEM’s 

Technology Assessment & Resource Program. Also, through the 

Environmental Studies Program, BOEM recently sponsored a workshop 

on “Quieting Technologies for Reducing Noise during Seismic 

Surveying and Pile Driving” (February 25-27, 2013, in Silver Spring, 

Maryland), which addressed this very topic, and will continue to work 

cooperatively to evaluate the development of new and alternative 

technologies. We do seek an orderly transition by industry toward 

alternatives to the impulse airgun. BOEM also believes that permitting 

incentives are worthy of consideration. Incentives may take the form of 

selective lifting of certain mitigation measures in the seismic protocol, or 

operating in an area or at a time that airguns are not permitted. It is 

important to recognize that BOEM is not seeking rulemaking on behalf 

of industry to operate in the Area of Interest. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.15 

BOEM should exclude from G&G exploration areas that are 

unlikely to be leased in the near future, whether for biological, 

political, or economic reasons, such as waters within 50 miles 

of the Virginia shore or waters important to the Navy’s national 

security mission.

Broad scale seismic surveys are needed to help identify prospective 

locations for oil and gas development and are essential to providing 

BOEM’s accurate resource assessments and potential reserve estimates. 

The scope of individual seismic surveys is not determined by BOEM, 

since BOEM does not conduct its own surveys, but by the survey 

operators who have submitted applications based on what they believe 

industry interest may be, and what data sets they may be able to market 

to potential clients. In addition, broad scale seismic surveys provide 

geological framework data that helps to identify and map regional 

structures, even if some of the areas surveyed would not be suitable for 

future exploration leasing. The G&G surveys in support of renewable 

energy and marine minerals programs would be conducted only at 

specific sites identified by developers or agencies, and by definition 

these sites would be at least potentially suitable for the proposed 

development or use. Chapter 3.0 identifies the likely depth ranges for 

renewable energy and marine minerals activities. Finally, high 

resolution G&G site surveys, whether for oil and gas, renewable energy, 

or marine minerals development, are essential in identifying sensitive 

benthic communities, archaeological resources, and other features for 

avoidance. Locations of many such features are not known until a 

geophysical survey is conducted. The examples of potential conflicting 

uses provided will certainly be considered when site-specific projects go 

through the evaluation process. Further, restricting G&G exploration at 

this time from certain areas does not meet the purpose and need of this 

Programmatic EIS.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-145

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.16 

BOEM should consider establishing buffer zones around all of 

its time-area closures, to prevent ensonification of important 

habitat at disruptive levels.

The time-area closures were based on specific areas that are either 

protected by laws and regulations (NARW critical habitat and SMAs) or 

documented as high use areas (sea turtle nesting in Brevard County, 

Florida). BOEM has determined that the extent of the time-area closure 

will remain at 20 nmi (37 km; 23 mi) from shore for Alternative B, the 

Agency’s Preferred Alternative and believes this is adequate for ensuring 

ensonification is not at disruptive levels. 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. BOEM has revised the 

Programmatic EIS to note that these time-area closures would align with 

any future changes in right whale critical habitat or SMAs. We also note 

that proposed surveys adjacent to right whale CH or SMAs (but not 

within closure areas) could be subject to additional mitigation 

requirements if determined reasonable and prudent by NMFS. Airgun

surveys authorized outside of CH, SMAs, and DMAs shall operate at 

distances such that received levels at the boundaries of these areas do not 

exceed the Level B harassment threshold as determined by field 

verification or modeling. Additional mitigation measures to reduce 

impacts caused by sound producing activities proposed in or near the 

boundaries of an NMS would be determined during site/permit-specific 

reviews in consultation with the Sanctuary Superintendent pursuant to 

Section 304(d) of the NMSA. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.17 

BOEM should develop time-area closures for marine mammals 

based on a systematic analysis of their density, distribution, and 

habitat use within the area of interest. To begin with, it should 

expand the time-area closure for North Atlantic right whales to 

fully capture the calving grounds and migration corridor, and 

put the Cape Hatteras Special Research Area off limits on a 

year-round basis.

The time-area closures were based on specific areas that are either 

protected by laws and regulations (NARW critical habitat and SMAs) or 

documented as high use areas (sea turtle nesting in Brevard County, 

Florida). BOEM considered expanding the time-area closures based on 

areas likely to be of interest to industry as well as information made 

available since release of the Draft Programmatic EIS that includes 

BOEM’s 2012 Atlantic resource assessment (USDOI, BOEM 2012) and 

NOAA’s cetacean stock assessment; however, BOEM has determined 

that for airgun surveys the extent of the closure will remain at 20 nmi 

from shore for Alternative B, the Agency’s Preferred Alternative. 

BOEM has revised the Programmatic EIS to note that these time-area 

closures would align with any future changes in right whale critical 

habitat, SMAs, and/or DMAs. The designation of the Cape Hatteras 

Special Research Area (CHSRA) relates specifically to commercial 

longline fishing and regulatory and non-regulatory measures to reduce 

marine mammal and other species bycatch from that fishery. The 

designation of the CSHRA does not include restrictions on other 

activities including navigation through the area and, therefore, would not 
L-146 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

warrant a year-round area closure for other activities including G&G 

activities. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.18 

BOEM should extend the seasonal Brevard County time-area 

closure for sea turtles to near-coastal areas through North 

Carolina, and should consult with NMFS to ensure inclusion of 

all loggerhead critical habitat in any closure provision.

As noted in Chapter 2.2.2.2, 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the 

U.S. occurs in the Archie Carr NWR. Annual numbers of loggerhead 

nests for all counties north of Brevard County are 1 to 3 orders of 

magnitude lower and at this time do not warrant time-area closures. This 

is why this area was included in Alternative B for additional closures for 

airgun surveys. Closure of the entire coastal areas through North 

Carolina for sea turtles along with the closures for right whales, would 

preclude airgun survey activities for most of the year except for two, 

2-week periods in this nearshore area. As discussed in Chapter 

4.2.3.2.2, subbottom profilers, sonars, and depth sounders are largely 

beyond the functional hearing range of sea turtles and are expected to 

have negligible effects. These non-airgun HRG surveys are expected to 

be the types of surveys most likely to be performed in the near shore 

areas rather than the airgun surveys. Additional mitigation measures are 

included for protection of sea turtles including vessel strike avoidance 

and acoustic exclusion zone shutdowns, please refer to Chapters 

2.1.2.1.1, 2.1.2.2, and Appendix C. 

BOEM has conducted formal ESA consultation with NMFS throughout 

this process. On May 24, 2013, NMFS issued a Final BO and on 

July 19, 2013, NMFS issued a revised Final BO.

NMFS concluded in the BO that the proposed G&G activities are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species under 

consultation. NMFS also concluded the proposed action is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify NARW critical habitat. The following sea 

turtle species were included in the consultation; green, hawksbill, 

Kemp’s ridley, leatherback and Northwest Atlantic loggerhead sea 

turtles. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.19 

BOEM should consider alternatives that exclude key fish 

habitat and fisheries, including submarine canyons in the midAtlantic, and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern designated by 

the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils. 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) and any areas designated 

as EFH are reviewed and would be mitigated as required in consultations 

under the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries and Conservation Management 

Act with the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservations at the 

permit/site-specific level. Additionally, on June 1, 2012, NMFS 

determined BOEM’s request for Programmatic EFH Consultation was 

not an appropriate mechanism to evaluate EFH impacts of BOEM’s

G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS based on information available at the 

time. In response, BOEM has proposed each activity that occurs under 

this proposed action would receive an environmental review, including 

an EFH assessment from BOEM. Based on the impact analysis 

presented in the Programmatic EIS, the areas proposed are not worthy of 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-147

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

a separate alternative. Further, BOEM incorporated the report, “Effects 

of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and 

Arctic Oceans from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities” from 

the BOEM-sponsored workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau 

Associates, Inc., 2012). This report addressed key fish habitat, fisheries, 

and areas of concern in the mid- and South Atlantic. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.20 

BOEM should exclude airgun surveys within a 145 dB isopleth 

around established dive sites.

All surveys within or near an MPA will require coordination with the 

MPA manager. As part of the process for site/permit-specific activities 

BOEM and BSEE’s Environmental Enforcement Division will conduct 

future consultation and coordination with NOAA’s Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). These coordination activities will include 

the 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 National and Marine Sanctuaries and environmental 

monitoring and enforcement efforts. BOEM and BSEE have begun this 

process through the November 2, 2012, letter to Mr. Daniel Basta the 

Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Please see 

revisions to Chapter 5.7.6.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.21 

BOEM should require that airgun survey vessels use the lowest 

practicable source levels, minimize horizontal propagation of 

the sound signal, and minimize the density of track lines 

consistent with the purposes of the survey, and, to this end, 

should consider establishing an expert panel within the agency 

to review survey designs with the aim of reducing their wildlife 

impacts.

In November 2012, BOEM hosted a workshop on Mitigation and 

Monitoring that addressed these very ideas. While the workshop was 

specific to the Gulf of Mexico region, many of the ideas discussed could 

also be applicable to the Atlantic OCS. Many of the monitoring and 

mitigation ideas are reflected in Chapter 4.0 of this Programmatic EIS. 

At this time, BOEM believes that Alternative B, the Preferred 

Alternative, provides the most appropriate protection to the environment 

through monitoring and mitigation measures. However, additional 

measures will be evaluated through analyses for individual, site-specific 

activities.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.22 

BOEM should require operators to validate in situ the 

assumptions about propagation distances used to establish 

safety zones and calculate take, as is required in the Arctic.

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol has been revised to require that 

operators establish an exclusion zone for each survey. The zone shall be 

calculated independently, be based on the configuration of the array and 

the ambient environment, but shall not have a radius of less than 500 m

(1,640 ft).

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.23 

BOEM should therefore require that all vessels associated with 

G&G activities, including support vessels and vessels used in 

HRG surveys, adhere to a 10 knot speed limit when operating 

or transiting at all times.

BOEM believes it will be impractical for vessels to adhere to a 10-kn 

speed limit at all times. However, all authorizations for shipboard 

surveys, regardless of vessel size would include guidance for vessel

strike avoidance. The guidance would be similar to NTL 2012-JOINTG01 (“Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012b), which incorporates 

NMFS “Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners” 

addressing protected species identification, vessel strike avoidance, and 
L-148 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

injured/dead protected species reporting. As described in Chapter 

2.1.2.1.1 vessel speeds within critical habitat from November 15 to April 

15 and SMA and DMAs from November 1 to April 30 will be required 

to operate within the 10 kn (18.5 km/h) speed restrictions. In addition, 

year-round vessel strike avoidance and crew members, visual 

observers/PSOs are required to maintain watch during transit to avoid 

striking marine mammals and sea turtles. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.24 

BOEM should require that vessels avoid important habitat, 

such as right whale calving grounds, when transiting to G&G 

activities.

BOEM believes it will be impractical to avoid calving grounds entirely 

when transiting during G&G activities. However, all authorizations for 

shipboard surveys, regardless of vessel size would include guidance for 

vessel strike avoidance. The guidance would be similar to NTL 2012-

JOINT-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. As described in 

Chapter 2.1.2.1.1 vessel speeds within CH from November 15 to April 

15 and SMA and DMAs from November 1 to April 30 will be required 

to operate within the 10 kn (18.5 km/h) speed restrictions. In addition, 

year-round vessel strike avoidance and crew members, visual 

observers/PSOs are required to maintain watch during transit to avoid 

striking marine mammals and sea turtles.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC 

NGOE-10 0.25 

BOEM should require that all vessels used in oil and gas G&G 

activities undergo measurement for their underwater noise 

output per American National Standards Institute/ Acoustical 

Society of America standards (S12.64); that all such vessels

undergo regular maintenance to minimize propeller cavitation; 

and that all new industry vessels be required to employ the best 

ship-quieting designs and technologies available for their class 

of ship.

BOEM appreciates the comment, but the suggested requirements are 

outside of BOEM's jurisdiction.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.26 

BOEM should consider prescribing larger, more conservative 

separation distances, since marine mammals can experience 

displacement and other impacts well beyond the 160 dB 

isopleth, on which the current proposed separation distance is 

based.

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. This evaluation will also consider any potential 

aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any). 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-149

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.27 

BOEM should require that operators working close to shore 

design their tracklines to minimize the potential for 

embayments and strandings. 

Geological and geophysical surveys conducted close to shore are likely 

to be in support of the renewable energy or marine minerals programs. 

Most of the equipment used for those surveys operates at higher 

frequencies or produces a directed output, both factors tending to limit 

the area ensonified. Survey equipment that doesn't fall into those 

categories will be closely scrutinized during the individual site-specific 

review and analysis.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.28 

BOEM should reconsider the size of the safety zones it would 

prescribe as part of its nominal protocol for seismic airgun 

surveys, taking into account new data on the threshold shift in 

marine mammals; and should consider establishing larger 

shutdown zones for certain target species, such as right whales.

The size of the safety zone for airgun surveys will vary according to the 

source output level, as indicated in Appendix C, Section 3.2, based on 

the acoustic criteria established by NMFS. Should NMFS choose to 

make changes to criteria BOEM will incorporate them into the 

mitigation protocol. The purpose of the Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol

is to prevent injury (Level A harassment) of marine mammals to the 

maximum extent practicable. The radius of the exclusion zone would be 

based on the predicted range at which animals could be exposed to a 

received sound pressure level 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 exclusion zone would be 

calculated, modeled, or field verified on a survey-specific basis but 

would not be less than 500 m (1,640 ft). Based on calculations in 

Appendix D, the 180-dB zone for a large airgun array (5,400 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 HRG 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).

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.29 

BOEM should improve its real-time monitoring requirements, 

by reducing the length of time a marine mammal observer can 

continuously work; requiring that observers used on airgun 

surveys have meaningful field experience; mandating, or at 

least presumptively requiring, the use of passive acoustic 

monitoring; prescribing aerial surveillance on a case-by-case 

basis; and, for HRG surveys, requiring two trained observers in 

order to maintain coverage on both sides of the survey vessel.

Alternative B, which includes requirements for PAM, has been identified 

as the agency’s Preferred Alternative. In its Biological Opinion, NMFS 

has required the use of PAM for airgun surveys. The Seismic Airgun 

and HRG Survey Protocols specify that PSOs must have completed a 

training course, and based on our experience with the same requirement 

used in the Gulf of Mexico, we expect that PSOs would have meaningful 

field experience. Observers shall operate under the following guidelines:

(1) other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no 

additional duties shall be assigned to observers during their watch; 

(2) a watch shall be no longer than four consecutive hours; 

(3) a break of at least two hours shall occur between watches, no other 

duties shall be assigned during this period; and

(4) an observer’s combined watch schedule shall not exceed 12 hours 

during a 24-hour period.

Due to shift requirements two PSOs would be onboard these HRG 

vessels; however, one PSO is on watch at a time. Due to the smaller size 
L-150 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

of the HRG vessels for these types of surveys, one PSO can adequately 

monitor the required exclusion zone. The PSO requirements in the 

survey protocol are consistent with the General Mitigation and 

Monitoring Requirements in the BO. For HRG sources operating at 

frequencies below 200 kHz there are monitoring requirements for both 

an acoustic exclusion zone and a vessel strike exclusion zone. For nonairgun HRG sources operating at frequencies above 200 kHz, only a 

vessel strike exclusion zone would be monitored. Through the Adaptive 

Management process, mitigation requirements could be revised if new 

information indicates that they are infeasible or could be made more 

effective.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.30 

BOEM should commit to consider limiting activities in lowvisibility conditions on a case-by-case basis, and describe the 

conditions under which it might be required.

BOEM recognizes that visibility can influence the effectiveness of 

Protective Species Observers. The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol in 

Section 3.2 and 3.3 of Appendix C addresses this issue. Alternative B, 

which has been identified as the Agency’s Preferred Alternative, 

includes the required use of PAM for seismic surveys and may be used 

as an additional monitoring technology for HRG surveys using sources 

operating at frequencies at or below 200 kHz to help locate animals at all 

times, including those when visual conditions are not ideal. The Seismic 

Airgun and HRG Survey Protocols in Section 3.2 of Appendix C

address this issue. The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol specifies that 

operators cannot initiate start-up procedures at night or when they cannot 

visually monitor the exclusion zone for marine mammals and sea turtles 

if the minimum source level drops below the current level B harassment 

threshold. If BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility for HRG non-airgun 

surveys using sources operating at frequencies at or below 200 kHz, 

operators must use effective monitoring technologies to monitor the 

exclusion zone. Possible tools include shipboard lighting, enhanced 

vision equipment, night-vision equipment and/or passive acoustic 

monitoring. Future site-specific analyses may provide additional 

limitations, as necessary.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.31 

BOEM should immediately develop a long-term monitoring 

program, to establish environmental baselines, to determine 

long-term impacts on populations of target species, and to test 

whether the biological assumptions underlying the DPEIS are 

correct. 

BOEM has partnered with NOAA and other organizations to fund 

projects to improve biological information on protected species in the 

U.S. Atlantic. Two notable programs include the following: 

• Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) 

– This is an effort to collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the 

seasonal distribution and abundance of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds), marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard 

surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters. The project will also 

collect similar data at finer scales at several sites of particular interest to 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-151

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

NMFS and BOEM. Importantly, AMAPPS also seeks to assess the 

population size of surveyed species at regional scales and develop 

models and associated tools to translate these survey data into seasonal, 

spatially explicit density estimates incorporating habitat characteristics 

(see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/protspp/mainpage/AMAPPS/ 

index.html and http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Environmental _

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/AT-10-x11.pdf). 

• BOEM, working with NOAA, has developed the Multipurpose Marine 

Cadastre, an integrated marine information system that provides legal, 

physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic 

information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/ Oil-and-GasEnergy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-Purpose-Marine-CadastreMap-Viewer/Index.aspx). 

BOEM continues to consider other opportunities to improve knowledge 

of the biological baseline as well as opportunities to develop a long-term 

monitoring program. BOEM agrees that a long-term monitoring 

program is beneficial and will further develop such a program during 

individual, site-specific analyses.

Ultimately, NEPA requires that Federal agencies use the best available 

information in environmental impact statements, which BOEM has done. 

BOEM will continue to monitor the results of AMAPPS and other 

relevant studies (i.e., NOAA Sound and Cetacean Density Mapping) to 

ensure any updated data relevant to the Atlantic OCS are considered as 

they become available to support future, site/permit-specific evaluations 

of individual survey applications.

Finally, as part of its Adaptive Management program BOEM intends to 

review the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Mitigation and 

requirements could be revised if new information indicates that they are 

infeasible or could be made more effective.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.32 

BOEM should incorporate an adaptive management plan into 

its alternatives, and should also set forth a protocol for 

emergency review or suspension of activities, if serious 

unanticipated impacts are found to occur.

A discussion of Adaptive Management has been added to Appendix C, 

Section 7. Adaptive Management is an iterative process for 

decision-making in the face of uncertainty where systematic monitoring 

is employed over time to reduce uncertainty. The process will provide 

the framework for changing mitigation requirements based on evaluation 

of monitoring data. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.33 

Other impacts on commercially harvested fish include habitat 

abandonment 

Impacts to commercial fisheries from acoustic sound sources is 

discussed in Chapter 4.2.7.2.2 and additional supporting information is 

presented in Appendix J. As noted in the Programmatic EIS, several 

studies suggest that the spatial displacement of fishes is limited and that 

fishes move back into their preferred areas after cessation of seismic 
L-152 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

survey activity (e.g., within a few minutes to several days). Some study 

results suggest that fishes do not respond to sounds that are not 

biologically produced. The studies referenced in this comment do not 

provide any data on reproductive performance nor do they support the 

suggestion that habitat abandonment is a likely impact of seismic 

surveys. Further, BOEM incorporated the report, “Effects of Noise on 

Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic Oceans 

from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities” from the BOEMsponsored workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau Associates, Inc.,

2012). This report addressed fish species and fisheries of concern and 

the impacts on these resources from sound.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.34 

Several studies indicate that airgun noise can kill or decrease 

the viability of fish eggs and larvae.18

BOEM incorporated the report, “Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and 

Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from Energy 

Industry Sound-Generating Activities” from the BOEM-sponsored 

workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2012). This 

report addressed effects of sound on the viability of fish eggs and larvae. 

This subject is addressed in Section 7.2 of Appendix J.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.35 

The PDEIS’ alternatives and mitigation analyses are 

incomplete and do not satisfy the regulatory standards.

BOEM believes that it has followed the regulatory standards for 

developing NEPA alternatives, which included to “study, develop, and 

describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in 

any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative 

uses of available resources.” (Section 102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]). The 

construction of our alternatives followed the simple premise that to be a 

valid alternative it would have to fulfill the purpose and need for the 

proposed action and be economically feasible and technically viable. 

The range of alternatives was developed based on the underlying 

purpose and need. Alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need 

were not carried forward for further analysis. In addition to alternatives 

carried forward for detailed analysis, a number of alternatives were 

considered, but not analyzed. These can be found in Chapter 2.5, and 

include a series of non-airgun acoustic source alternatives. A detailed 

explanation as to why each was not carried forward for analysis can be 

found in that section. See also our responses to comments 

NGO-E-1:0.36 through NGO-E-1:0.52. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.36 

The DPEIS declines even to consider an alternative limiting the 

amount of activity that can be conducted in the Atlantic, or part 

of the Atlantic, over a given period. The DPEIS does not 

provide any reason for BOEM’s lack of consideration of 

activity limits.

The concept of limiting survey activity on the OCS it is not necessarily a 

practical concept in both prelease and post-lease phases. First, before the 

DOI schedules a lease sale or opens an AOI for prelease G&G activity, 

geophysical contractors gauge the level of interest by potential clients 

and may set up a survey plan with specified parameters to license their 

data to more than one user. This business model tends to self-limit the 

number of surveys because a geophysical vendor is not going to go 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-153

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

through the effort to design, permit and authorize, and conduct a survey 

unless they know there is a reasonable expectation of making a return on 

their investment. Furthermore, the parameters for a seismic survey can 

be designed to address various purposes, all of which can't be known 

beforehand. No one survey, or scheme to parsimoniously meter survey 

opportunities, can serve all desired outcomes and to expect the industry 

to do so simply demonstrates a lack of understanding for how the data 

are used. At this early stage of activity, before leasing is even 

contemplated, there is no reason to request or require industry to selflimit the degree to which they may be interested in acquiring OCS 

leases. Second, the OCSLA established the basis for administering

access to public lands. Parcels available for leasing are divided into 

blocks of approximately 9 mi2 that are distributed in protraction areas of 

various size. Nine square miles is a comparatively fine parceling of the 

OCS compared to the partitioning of other country’s OCS. With the 

OCS block as the fundamental post-lease business unit, leaseholders 

pursue their interests within these areas, part of which may require G&G 

surveying. In summary, in the current prelease phase it is premature to 

consider any sort of survey activity restriction, in this Programmatic EIS, 

because our awareness for what is out there is based on 30-year-old 2D 

seismic data that is by no means of a quality that is state-of-the-practice. 

Furthermore, BOEM believes that the mitigation measures in 

Alternative B provide adequate protections to the environment. Further 

and different measures may be considered at the site/project-specific 

level 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.37 

Determining the legally acceptable limits of activity is essential 

to NMFS’ issuance of take authorizations in the Atlantic –

which, presumably, would be that agency’s purpose and need. 

Pursuant to NMFS’ own general regulations, an incidental 

harassment authorization must be revoked if the authorized 

takings “individually or in combination with other 

authorizations” are having more than a negligible impact on the 

population or an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence. 

Unfortunately, the DPEIS makes no attempt to assess whether 

the scope of activities it contemplates satisfies the negligible 

impact standard.

The Programmatic EIS presents an impact analysis within the NEPA 

framework and is not an application for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization. As a cooperating agency, NMFS may use this 

Programmatic EIS to support site-specific permit requests under the 

MMPA. At that time, NMFS will determine if the activities meet the 

criteria for a permit, such as not having more than a negligible impact on 

the population or an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence. 

Chapter 5.7.3 has been revised to state that 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, 

seismic 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 Incidental Take Statement. BOEM has noted 

that operators will be required to satisfy the requirements of all other 

agencies before a permit will be issued. Operators will be required to 
L-154 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

abide by any mitigation requirements stated in this Programmatic EIS, in 

addition to those included in an issued MMPA ITA or ESA ITS.

Michael Jansy, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.38 

In the Arctic, instead of developing a suitable alternative for the 

EIS, the agencies proposed, in effect, to consider overall limits 

on activities when evaluating individual applications under 

OCSLA and the MMPA. It would, however, be much more 

difficult for NMFS or BOEM to undertake that kind of analysis 

in an individual IHA application or OCSLA exploration plan 

because the agencies often lack sufficient information to take 

an overarching view of the activities occurring that year. 

Determining limits at the outset would also presumably reduce 

uncertainty for industry. In short, excluding any consideration 

of activity limits from the alternatives analysis in this EIS 

frustrates the purpose of programmatic review, contrary to 

NEPA.

The purpose of a programmatic document isn't to limit activities, but “to 

focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental 

review.” In looking at anticipated activities within the three program 

areas over the time period in question, this document does that. The 

activity levels defined in this document provide regulators with an 

overarching view of future years to be utilized in reviewing site-specific 

actions and related documents and permit applications that will tier 

under this Programmatic EIS. Also please see response to comment 

NGO-E-1:0.36. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.39 

Failure to develop alternative based on eliminating duplicative 

survey effort. The DPEIS does not analyze this alternative 

“because its main benefit (a limit on concurrent surveys) is 

already addressed by Alternative B.” DPEIS at 2-49. BOEM 

has obviously mischaracterized the effects and benefits of a 

consolidation measure. Consolidating surveys would reduce 

concurrence by the standards of BOEM’s Alternative B only if 

the surveys in question happened to come within 40 km of one 

another while operating – a scenario that seems likely to 

represent a relatively small number of instances. On the 

contrary, the plain benefit of consolidation is to reduce the 

cumulative, not necessarily simultaneous, impacts of seismic 

activity on marine species. BOEM’s stated rationale for not 

considering this alternative does not make sense.

Chapter 2.5.5 has been revised to address the comment. We 

acknowledge that the geographic separation of concurrent surveys under 

Alternative B does not accomplish the same objective as the “consolidate 

and coordinate surveys” alternative. The reason for eliminating the latter 

alternative has been clarified in Chapter 2.5.5. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.40 

BOEM avers that consolidating and coordinating surveys “does not 

clearly fall under the mandates of this Agency,” or its sister agencies 

the Department of Energy and U.S. Geological Survey. DPEIS at 2-49. 

This argument seems similar to one advanced in the Arctic DPEIS, 

wherein the agencies suggested that BOEM could not adopt a data 

sharing measure, on the grounds that it cannot “require companies to 

share proprietary data, combine seismic programs, change lease terms, 

or prevent companies from acquiring data in the same geographic 

area.” Yet this analysis overlooks BOEM’s statutory duty under 

OCSLA to approve only those permits whose exploration activities are 

not “unduly harmful” to marine life. BOEM must consider an 

alternative that eliminates duplicative effort.

BOEM’s duty under OCSLA Section 11(g)(3) to issue permits for G&G 

activities that are not “unduly harmful to aquatic life” does not provide a 

mandate to consolidate and coordinate G&G surveys as suggested in this 

comment. A consolidation and coordination alternative was considered 

but eliminated because (1) it would not meet industry’s information 

needs and (2) BOEM believes it would be impractical at this time to 

require the coordination and consolidation of surveys. Additionally, it 

would not eliminate the need for site-specific surveys in support of 

individual projects. Please refer to Chapter 2.5.5 for a full discussion of 

this alternative.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-155

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.41 

The DPEIS, despite acknowledging the potential for alternative 

technology to reduce potential impacts on marine wildlife, has 

failed to develop and consider any alternatives for the 

development and implementation of that technology. DPEIS at 

2-54. The draft EIS instead relies on out-of-date information in 

characterizing the availability of certain technologies. For 

example, marine vibroseis – which has the potential to reduce 

peak sound levels by 30 decibels or more and virtually 

eliminate output above 100 Hz – is on the verge of commercial 

availability, with useable arrays produced by Geo-Kinetics and 

PGS now being tested for their environmental impacts on fish, 

and other models in development through the Canadian 

government and a Joint Industry Program.34 Yet the DPEIS 

uses a 2010 personal communication with PGS for the 

proposition that a commercial electric vibroseis array is not 

“available for data collection at this time” (DPEIS at 2-50) – an 

outdated observation that does not reflect current fact. Nor does 

the DPEIS consider the specific airgun modifications discussed 

in Weilgart (2010). See DPEIS at 2-53.

We have updated the discussion of non-airgun alternatives in Chapter 

2.5.6 and Appendix C, Section 6.0. The Geo-Kinetics marine vibrator 

is currently in the R&D stages, is scheduled to be field tested, and still 

currently not available for commercial use and therefore, is not a 

replacement for surveys using airguns. BOEM recently sponsored a 

workshop on “Quieting Technologies for Reducing Noise during 

Seismic Surveying and Pile Driving” (February 25-27, 2013, in Silver 

Spring, Maryland), and we will continue to work cooperatively to 

evaluate the development of new and alternative technologies. The 

construction of our alternatives followed the simple premise that to be a 

valid alternative it would have to be economically feasible, technically 

viable, and fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed action. We 

found that we could not fashion a NEPA alternative based on one or 

many of alternative acoustic sources to impulse seismic air guns that are 

described in Appendix C, Section 6 because none of them were 

economically feasible or technically viable for commercial deployment; 

all of them being in various stages of development. That conclusion has 

been reevaluated and verified for the Final Programmatic EIS (see 

Chapter 2.5.6.8). 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.42 

Critically, the DPEIS fails to include any actionable 

alternatives to require, incentivize, or test the use of new 

technologies in the Atlantic, or indeed in any other region. 

Such alternatives include: (1) mandating the use of marine 

vibroseis or other technologies in pilot areas, with an obligation 

to accrue data on environmental impacts; (2) creating an 

adaptive process by which marine vibroseis or other 

technologies can be required as they become available; (3) 

deferring the permitting of surveys in particular areas or for 

particular applications where effective mitigative technologies, 

such as marine vibroseis, could reasonably be expected to 

become available within the life of the EIS; (4) providing 

incentives for use of these technologies as was done for passive 

acoustic monitoring systems in NTL 2007-G02; and (5) 

exacting funds from applicants to support accelerated 

mitigation research in this area. The final EIS must consider 

these alternatives.

Chapter 2.5 of the Programmatic EIS, Alternatives Considered but not 

Analyzed, addresses the concerns regarding vibroseis and other types of 

survey equipment in development. That section contains a discussion as 

to why those potential alternatives were not carried forward for analysis. 

We have revised and updated the discussion of non-airgun alternatives in 

Chapter 2.5.6 and Appendix C, Section 6. We have also added a 

discussion of Adaptive Management in Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, 

Section 7. BOEM does seek to promote the development and 

implementation of alternatives to the impulse airgun. We evaluated a 

non airgun alternative in Chapter 2.5.6.8, and found that it would not 

meet the Agency’s purpose and need because none of the non airgun 

alternatives currently are economically feasible or technically viable for 

commercial deployment; all of them being in various stages of 

development. That conclusion has been reevaluated and verified for the 

Final Programmatic EIS. We do seek an orderly transition by industry 

toward alternatives to the impulse airgun and permitting incentives are 

worthy of consideration. Incentives may take the form of selective 

lifting of certain mitigation measures in the seismic protocol, or 

operating in an area or at a time that airguns are not permitted. The 

ability of BOEM to compel an applicant to deploy a specific technology 

they may not consider as adequate to their purpose has not been tested.
L-156 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.43 

Time and place restrictions designed to protect high-value 

habitat are one of the most effective means to reduce the 

potential impacts of noise and disturbance, including noise 

from oil and gas exploration. However, the PDEIS, while 

identifying two possible time-area closures for North Atlantic 

right whales and one possible closure for sea turtles, does not 

consider any other areas for any other species.

Time-area closures are not the only mechanism to protect sensitive 

resources. Time-area closures were determined to be the most effective 

mitigation to avoid certain significant impacts identified through the 

impact evaluation. These included impacts to NARWs in their critical 

habitat during the calving/nursing season, their SMAs, and DMAs and 

impacts to sea turtles offshore Brevard County, Florida during sea turtle 

nesting season. Other species and resources were considered in the 

impact analysis, but given the expected limited impacts as evaluated in 

Chapter 4.0, closures beyond those in Alternatives A and B were not 

reasonable. However, other mitigation measures were developed to 

protect other resources. For example, Chapter 2.1.2.3.2 addresses the 

measures that BOEM would take to avoid impacts to sensitive seafloor 

resources. We also note that activities near certain areas such as 

National Marine Sanctuaries and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

would be addressed through the consultation process for individual 

survey applications.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.44 

The PDEIS does not give any consideration to year-round area 

closures, for reasons that are unclear.

There are several reasons why year-round closures were not considered: 

the proposed time-area closures are designed to address certain species 

that use defined areas for specific periods of the year; also, year-round 

closures would significantly reduce access of the renewable energy and 

marine minerals programs to relevant portions of the Area of Interest.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.45 

Recommends increasing the Atlantic Right Whale closure area 

from 20 nm to 30 nm coastal exclusion (which is being 

considered by NMFS). However, this 30 nm exclusion zone 

does not include a buffer zone as the DPEIS suggests (DPEIS 

at 4-213), but reflects the extent of the right whale migratory 

corridor itself. Regardless of their status as critical habitat, this 

additional areas should be avoided, and added to the DPEIS’ 

alternatives analysis as an extension to the 20 nm coastal timearea closure of Alternative B.

BOEM considered expansion of the time-area closures but will keep the 

20 nmi time-area closure as proposed in the draft. BOEM’s resource 

evaluation staff in their 2011 Atlantic OCS Resource Assessment 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012) projected geological play types that would 

benefit by expansive 2D or 3D seismic surveys along the North Carolina 

coastal area. Such surveys tend to require long periods at sea to 

complete and a time-area closure beyond 20 nmi imposes a restriction on 

access to potential resource area that is not justified on the basis of 

available information, in as much as the 20 nmi zone outward from 

shoreline and the seasons to which it applied was recognized in NOAA’s 

Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR § 224.105). We 

believe that a 20-nmi (37 km; 23-mi) time-area closure provides a 

credible protective measure for NARWs and other marine mammal 

species transiting through to critical habitats at either end of their northsouth seasonal migration. BOEM has revised the Programmatic EIS to 

note that these time-area closures would align with any future changes in 

right whale critical habitat, SMAs, or DMAs. PSO and visual observers 

are required on all vessels year-round. Including these requirements will 

further protect NARWs and decrease the potential for greater impacts to 

the species.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-157

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.46 

For Alternatives A and B (see DPEIS at 2-4), a seasonal 

exclusion for right whales should also apply to HRG surveys, 

including for renewables. We would support allowing some 

small amount of sub-bottom profiling activity to occur during 

the winter exclusion period provided (1) that the operators have 

conscientiously planned to complete their HRG surveys outside 

the seasonal exclusion months, (2) that their inability to 

complete the surveys is due to unforeseen circumstances, and 

(3) that permitting some small amount of HRG activity to occur 

during the winter months would allow them to avoid extending 

their survey effort into the following calendar year. That said, 

given the conservation status of this species, we recommend 

extension of the right whale time-area closure to HRG activity.

The consultation process with NMFS and issuance of a Final BO has 

provided clarification and revision to previously proposed HRG Survey 

Protocol (see Appendix C). The Preferred Alternative includes 

mitigation measures to reduce and avoid impacts to a variety of 

biological resources, with an emphasis on reducing acoustic impacts to 

marine mammals and sea turtles.

Under the expanded time-area closure in the Preferred Alternative, no 

seismic surveys using airguns would be authorized within the NARW

critical habitat from November 15 through April 15, DMAs, the Mid 

Atlantic and Southeast U.S. SMAs, and the North expanded closure area 

from November 1 to April 30 and in the South expanded closure area 

from November 15 to April 15. 

Time-Area Closures would generally not be applied to G&G activities 

using HRG devices which do not use airguns sources. In most cases, the 

HRG sound sources for operational and monitoring surveys for the 

Marine Minerals Program and the Renewable Energy Program are 

conducted with devices utilizing sound sources which are above the 

hearing range of NARW. The devices could also operate with acoustic 

sound sources that would be within the hearing range of low-, mid-, and 

high-frequency cetaceans and could cause a behavioral response but 

would not likely cause physiological injury. HRG Operational and 

Monitoring surveys could be authorized within NARW critical habitat

and SMAs year round including the time period when these areas are 

closed to airgun surveys. See Appendix A for additional detail. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.47 

BOEM must consider excluding The Cape Hatteras Special 

Research Area from proposed surveys.

BOEM recognizes the commenter’s concern about the unique biological 

area. Currently, the designation of the CSHRA does not include 

restrictions on other activities including navigation through the area. 

Site-specific reviews will evaluate any proposed activities in this area. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.48 

BOEM has not attempted any systematic analysis of marine 

mammal habitat for purposes of establishing time-area closures 

within the area of interest. Indeed, given the importance of 

time-area closures in mitigating acoustic impacts, such an 

analysis (and the gathering of any needed data in support of 

that analysis) is essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives.

The analysis contained in this Programmatic EIS is adequate in that it 

reflects a complete assessment of the resources within the Area of 

Interest, the status and treatment those resources receive from other 

agencies, and the potential impacts to those resources. Therefore, the 

alternatives developed from this analysis reflect a reasoned choice 

among alternatives and incorporate the importance and value of 

time-area closures in mitigating impacts to affected resources. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.49 

Over the past few years, researchers have developed at least 

two predictive models to characterize densities of marine 

mammals in the area of interest: the NODE model produced by 

the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, and the 

Duke Marine Lab model. Indeed, the Navy employed the 

NODE model in developing three habitat-based alternatives, in 

The U.S. Navy’s Operating Area Density Estimates (NODE) data are 

currently the best available data for estimating marine mammal densities 

in the Mid/South Atlantic Planning Areas. BOEM has used these data 

within the analyses contained within this Programmatic EIS. The data 

are also used as part of the marine mammal take estimations via the 

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM©).
L-158 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

its own programmatic EIS, for sonar training off the U.S. east 

coast from 2009 to 2014. Further, NOAA has convened a 

Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Group with the 

purpose of evaluating, compiling, supplementing, and 

enhancing available density information for marine mammals 

within the U.S. EEZ. Its product, which includes habitat-based 

density maps and other data for nearly all of BOEM’s area of 

interest, broken down by species and month, was shared in late 

May at an expert workshop that was partly funded by BOEM, 

and is slated for public release in early July. BOEM must use 

these sources, which represent best available science and, 

indeed, have partly been used in prior Navy NEPA analyses 

and rulemakings, to identify important marine mammal habitat 

and develop reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. 

Species of particular importance, aside from the North Atlantic 

right whale, include the five other large whale species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act, i.e., blue, fin, sei, 

humpback, and sperm whales; and beaked whales and harbor 

porpoises, whose vulnerability to anthropogenic noise is well 

recognized. 

Marine mammal densities are correlated over medium to large 

scales with persistent ocean features, such as ocean currents, 

productivity, and surface temperature, as well as with 

concentrations in other marine species, such as other apex 

predators and fish. The occurrence of these features is often 

predictable enough to define core areas of biological 

importance on a year-round or seasonal basis. In the area of 

interest, the most important of these features is the Gulf 

Stream; warm-core rings that develop off the Gulf Stream are 

likely to provide particularly important habitat for beaked 

whales, which are considered especially sensitive and 

vulnerable to anthropogenic sound. Analysis of these features 

should figure in predictive mapping, but can be used to 

supplement maps that do not take dynamic features into 

account.

BOEM does agree and recognize that there are data gaps in marine 

mammal density information for these areas. We have adjusted the 

Programmatic EIS text accordingly and revised Appendix E to better 

explain any limitations to the density inputs used in the AIM©. To help 

improve density information, BOEM has partnered with the NOAA and 

other organizations to fund projects to improve biological information on 

protected species in the U.S. Atlantic. Two notable programs include the 

following: 

• Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS)

– This is an effort to collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the 

seasonal distribution and abundance of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds), marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard 

surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters. The project will also 

collect similar data at finer scales at several sites of particular interest to 

NMFS and BOEM. Importantly, AMAPPS also seeks to assess the 

population size of surveyed species at regional scales and develop 

models and associated tools to translate these survey data into seasonal, 

spatially explicit density estimates incorporating habitat characteristics 

(see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/protspp/mainpage/ AMAPPS/

index.html and http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/ Environmental_

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/AT-10-x11.pdf). 

• BOEM, working with NOAA, has developed the Multipurpose Marine 

Cadastre, an integrated marine information system that provides legal, 

physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic 

information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/ Oil-and-GasEnergy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-Purpose-Marine-CadastreMap-Viewer/Index.aspx). 

Ultimately, NEPA requires that Federal agencies use the best available 

information in environmental impact statements, which BOEM has done. 

BOEM will continue to monitor the results of AMAPPS and other 

relevant studies (i.e., NOAA Sound and Cetacean Density Mapping) to 

ensure any updated data are considered as they become available to 

support future, site/permit-specific evaluations of individual survey 

applications. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.50 

BOEM should extend its proposed Brevard County exclusion 

to coastal areas from Florida up through North Carolina during 

the sea turtle nesting season, from May 1 through October 31; 

should identify and exclude important foraging and migrating 

habitat outside the nesting areas; and should establish time-area 

closures for all loggerhead critical habitat, which NMFS is 

As noted in Chapter 2.2.2.2, 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the 

U.S. occurs in the Archie Carr NWR. This is why this area was included 

in Alternative B for additional closures for airgun surveys. Annual 

numbers of loggerhead nests for all counties north of Brevard County are 

1-3 orders of magnitude lower and at this time do not warrant time-area 

closures. Closure of the entire coastal areas through North Carolina for 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-159

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

required to designate, under the Endangered Species Act, by 

September 2012.

sea turtles along with the closures for right whales, would preclude 

airgun survey activities for most of the year except for two, 2-week 

periods in this nearshore area. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.3.2.2, 

subbottom profilers, sonars, and depth sounders are largely beyond the 

functional hearing range of sea turtles and are expected to have 

negligible effects. These non-airgun HRG surveys are expected to be the 

types of surveys most likely to be performed in the near shore areas 

rather than the airgun surveys. NMFS has not designated critical habitat 

for the loggerhead turtle at the time of the Final Programmatic EIS. 

Both NMFS and FWS will be included in the reviews related to sitespecific surveys, and any concerns raised will be addressed on a sitespecific basis.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.51 

The Final PEIS must consider alternatives that exclude key fish 

habitat and fisheries from the proposed action. These areas 

include: Charleston Bump and gyre complex; The Point (also 

known as Hatteras Corner); Ten Fathom Ledge and Big Rock; 

Submarine canyons and canyon heads; Areas designated as 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (“HAPCs”) by the MidAtlantic or South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; 

South Atlantic Deepwater MPAs; Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary; and Areas known to be inhabited by and/or 

proposed as critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon.

We do not believe that an alternative or closure for fish habitat and 

fisheries is warranted based on the low level of impacts identified in 

Chapter 4.0. This Agency's site-specific evaluations ensure that 

proposed activities do not set down on sensitive biologic communities by 

conducting bottom surveys, which could include photography, to screen 

areas where equipment or discharges may contact the bottom. There is 

no practical way to avoid a degree of ensonification of the water column 

across the substantial areas identified in this comment and in Figure 4-4

of this Final Programmatic EIS as HAPCs and still collect the data that is 

necessary to meet the proposed action's purpose and need. We also will 

mitigate these areas, as required by consultations, as EFH or protected 

habitats. In the Programmatic EIS Figure 4-2 shows seafloor features, 

Figure 4-4 the HAPCs, and Figure 4-33 the NMS. It is anticipated that 

NTLs in the Atlantic would be created with similar protective elements 

as in those existing for the GOMR. See NTL 2009-G39 and NTL 

2009-G40 (http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Regulations/

Notices_To_Lessees/2009/09-G39.pdf and http://www.boem.gov/

uploadedFiles/BOEM/Regulations/Notices_To_Lessees/2009/09-

G40.pdf).

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.52 

BOEM must analyze an alternative that would require any 

entity carrying out the proposed activities to identify 

aggregations of forage species and prohibit operations within 

the vicinity of such aggregations that might disturb them. 

Similarly, BOEM must analyze an alternative that would 

prohibit the proposed activities from being carried out in the 

vicinity of spawning aggregations of grouper and snapper 

species, as well as concentrations of Sargassum, which 

provides vital nursery habitat to numerous species in Atlantic 

shelf waters and the Gulf Stream.

The alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS are based on 

technical feasibility and economic viability, which would be our 

definition of “reasonable,” which are conditions that are evident in the 

proposed alternatives. The prospect of applying mitigations based on 

commercially important fish species was entertained, but not found to be 

actionable. Comments on the Programmatic EIS also did not surface 

actionable mitigations for any commercially important fish species or 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). As part of the site-specific permitting, 

BOEM would coordinate with NOAA NMFS through the EFH 

Consultation process to address fishery and habitat concerns. Chapter 
L-160 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

5.7.4 provides this information about EFH consultation. Briefly, 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. In response, BOEM has proposed each 

activity that occurs under this proposed action would receive an 

environmental review including an EFH assessment from BOEM.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.53 

BOEM should consider establishing a cumulative exposure 

metric for temporary threshold shift in addition to the present 

RMS metric, as suggested by Southall et al. (2007).

The comment is appreciated but BOEM must use the threshold criteria 

provided by NMFS. NOAA has expressed the intention to release new 

acoustic impact criteria. BOEM will evaluate the implications for 

BOEM’s permitting responsibility, participate in the public vetting that 

would accompany new criteria, and observe or participate in the peer 

review assembled to evaluate them. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.54 

The DPEIS cites to the applicable Council of Environmental 

Quality (“CEQ”) regulation and maintains that it identifies 

those areas where information is unavailable to support a 

thorough evaluation of the environmental consequences of the 

alternatives. See DPEIS at 4-6. In fact, however, the document 

evades the analysis that § 1502.22 requires. In the first place, it 

fails to identify certain obvious gaps in information – such as 

important habitat areas for marine mammals – essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives. Beyond this, its modus 

operandi is to acknowledge major information gaps on virtually 

every topic under analysis, then insist – without any specific 

findings about their significance for the agencies’ decision 

making – that BOEM agency has an adequate basis for 

proceeding. See, e.g., PDEIS at 4-46 (masking in marine 

mammals), 4-47 to 4-49 (stress and behavioral impacts in 

marine mammals), 4-79 (behavioral impacts on sea turtles). 

This approach simply does not satisfy NEPA.

The incomplete and unavailable information guidelines found in the 

CEQ regulations are intended to provide guidance for agencies 

evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. The Draft 

and Final Programmatic EIS have thoroughly examined the existing 

credible scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating the reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts of G&G proposed activities on 

the physical, biological, and human environments. The subject-matter 

experts that prepared this EIS conducted a diligent search for pertinent 

information, and BOEM’s evaluation of such impacts is based upon 

current theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in 

the scientific community. All reasonably foreseeable impacts were 

considered, including impacts that could have catastrophic 

consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low. Throughout 

Chapter 4.0, where information was incomplete or unavailable, BOEM 

complied with its obligations under NEPA to determine if the 

information was relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 

impacts; if so, whether it was essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives; and, if it is essential, whether it can be obtained and whether 

the cost of obtaining the information is exorbitant, as well as whether 

generally accepted scientific methodologies can be applied in its place 

(40 CFR § 1502.22).

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.55 

Agencies have an obligation pursuant to NEPA “to ensure that 

data exists before approval” so that decision makers can 

“understand the adverse environmental effect ab initio.” 

BOEM has not done so here.

This Programmatic EIS is not a decision-making document, but an 

analysis to aid in the decision-making process. The Programmatic EIS 

has utilized all available information in its analysis, where information 

has not been available that has been noted. BOEM is confident the 

information upon which the analysis is based is sufficient to allow an 

informed decision, in accordance with NEPA. As a programmatic 

document this EIS serves as an overview of G&G surveys for the three 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-161

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

program areas. Individual projects will receive additional analysis under 

NEPA and will require permit approvals as applicable to the site-specific 

activity.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.56 

The DPEIS has vastly underestimated marine mammal take 

from the proposed activity. The reasons for this are manifold, 

but lie principally in the agency’s mistaken adoption of a 

160 dB threshold for Level B take and its failure to calculate 

impacts from masking. Nor has BOEM performed a sensitivity 

analysis to determine how significantly its take and impact 

estimates would differ if some of its core assumptions – such as 

its 160 dB threshold – are wrong.

BOEM has utilized the thresholds provided by NMFS, and until the 

established thresholds are changed, BOEM must follow existing 

thresholds. BOEM recognizes that literature suggests that there is a need 

for a change to the standard and that a new standard may be provided. 

When it is provided, BOEM will be responsive to those changes at that 

time and each individual survey would utilize the new thresholds. Until 

then, we must use the existing thresholds. BOEM also utilized acoustic 

propagation and marine mammal take modeling to estimate the number 

of marine mammals that may be harassed by the noise. These models 

utilize the best scientific data available, including propagation loss 

equations, physical oceanographic properties of the Atlantic OCS, and 

the most current marine mammal density data available at the time of the 

modeling to calculate these estimates.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.57 

The DPEIS uses a single sound pressure level (160 dB re 1 μPa 

(RMS)) as a threshold for behavioral, sublethal take in all 

marine mammal species from seismic airguns. This approach 

simply does not reflect the best available science, and the 

choice of threshold is not sufficiently conservative in several 

important respects. BOEM must use a more conservative 

threshold for the following reasons: (a) The method represents 

a major step backward from recent programmatic 

authorizations. For Navy sonar activity, NMFS has used a 

combination of specific bright-line thresholds (for harbor 

porpoises) and linear risk functions that endeavor to take 

account of risk and individual variability and to reflect the 

potential for take at relatively low levels. (b) The 160 dB 

threshold is non-conservative, since the scientific literature 

establishes that behavioral disruption can occur at substantially 

lower received levels for some species. (c) The use of a multipulse standard for behavior harassment is non-conservative, 

since it does not take into account the spreading of seismic 

pulses over time beyond a certain distance from the array. (d) 

The threshold’s basis in the root mean square (“RMS”) of 

sound pressure, rather than in peak pressure, is nonconservative.

BOEM has utilized the thresholds provided by NMFS. The 

Programmatic EIS is using these NMFS thresholds while discussing the 

Southall criteria as a way of comparison in the document. BOEM 

recognizes that literature suggests that there is a need for a change to the 

standard and that a new standard may be provided. When it is provided, 

BOEM will be responsive to those changes at that time and each 

individual survey would utilize the new thresholds. Until then, we must 

use the existing thresholds. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.58 

NMFS must revise the thresholds and methodology used to 

estimate take from airgun use. Specifically, we urge the 

following: (a) NMFS should employ a combination of specific 

BOEM has utilized the thresholds provided by NMFS. The 

Programmatic EIS is using these NMFS thresholds while discussing the 

Southall (2007) criteria as a way of comparison in the document. BOEM 
L-162 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

thresholds for which sufficient species-specific data are 

available and generalized thresholds for all other species. (b) 

Data on species for which specific thresholds are developed 

should be included in deriving generalized thresholds for 

species for which less data are available. (c) In deriving its 

take thresholds, NMFS should treat airgun arrays as a mixed 

acoustic type, behaving as a multi-pulse source closer to the 

array and, in effect, as a continuous noise source further from 

the array, per the findings of the 2011 Open Water Panel. (d) 

Behavioral take thresholds for the impulsive component of 

airgun noise should be based on peak pressure rather than on 

RMS, or dual criteria based on both peak pressure and RMS 

should be used. Alternatively, BOEM should use the most 

biologically conservative method of calculating RMS.

recognizes that literature suggests that there is a need for a change to the 

standard and that a new standard may be provided. When it is provided, 

BOEM will be responsive to those changes at that time and each 

individual survey would utilize the new thresholds. Until then, we must 

use the existing thresholds. BOEM also utilized acoustic propagation 

and marine mammal take modeling to estimate the number of marine 

mammals that may be harassed by the noise. These models utilize the 

best scientific data, including propagation loss equations, physical 

oceanographic properties of the Atlantic OCS, and the most current 

marine mammal density data available at the time of the modeling to 

calculate these estimates. If new methodology is later determined, 

BOEM and NMFS may utilize the new methodology, as well as new

data, for sound source modeling and take modeling for individual, sitespecific analyses.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.59 

The DPEIS fails to consider masking effects, either from 

continuous noise sources such as ships or from mixed 

impulsive/continuous noise sources such as airguns. 

Accordingly, BOEM must evaluate the loss of communication 

space – and consider the extent of acoustic propagation – at far 

lower received levels than the DPEIS currently employs.

Masking effects are included (see Chapter 4.2.2.2.1, Chapter 4.2.2.2.2, 

and Appendix H). Text has been added to Chapter 4.2.2.2.2 to address 

this issue.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.60 

The DPEIS appears to estimate cases of temporary threshold 

shift, or hearing loss, in two ways: by using the original NMFS 

threshold of 180 dB (SPL), and by applying the hybridized 

standards set forth in Southall et al. (2007) for different marine 

mammal functional hearing groups.132 Unfortunately, BOEM’s 

particular use of Southall et al. (2007) neglects the 

modifications that have since been made to these standards, by 

Dr. Southall and the U.S. Navy, in light of new scientific 

information. First, BOEM must modify its standard for highfrequency cetaceans to account for new threshold shift data on 

harbor porpoises. The new data show that harbor porpoises 

experience threshold shift on exposure to airgun signals at 

substantially lower levels than the two mid-frequency cetaceans 

(bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales) on which the Southall 

et al. acoustic criteria were based. Given similarities between 

the harbor porpoise ear and that of other high-frequency 

cetaceans, both the U.S. Navy – in its recent DEISs for the 

Atlantic Fleet and the Southern California and Hawaii Range 

Complexes, and in a related technical report prepared by 

SPAWAR – and Dr. Southall and colleagues from St. 

Andrew’s University, in their Environmental Impact Report for 

While take estimate numbers based on the Southall approach are 

included in the document, all assessments of impact are based on the 

criteria established by NMFS which specifies that marine mammals 

exposed to pulsed sounds with received levels exceeding 180 or 190 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, are considered 

to exceed Level A (Injury) levels; cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to 

levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are considered to exceed Level B 

(Behavioral Harassment) criteria. BOEM also utilized acoustic 

propagation and marine mammal take modeling to estimate the number 

of marine mammals that may be harassed by the noise. These models 

utilize the best scientific data, including propagation loss equations, 

physical oceanographic properties of the Atlantic OCS, and the most 

current marine mammal density data available at the time of the 

modeling to calculate these estimates. If new methodology is later 

developed, BOEM and NMFS may utilize the new methodology, as well 

as new data, for sound source modeling and take modeling for 

individual, site-specific analyses.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-163

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

a seismic survey off the central California coast, have 

significantly reduced the temporary and permanent threshold 

shift criteria for all high-frequency cetaceans. BOEM must do 

the same.

Second, and similarly, BOEM must modify its Southall et al. 

standard for low-frequency cetaceans: the baleen whales. New 

data from SPAWAR indicates that mid-frequency cetaceans 

have greater sensitivity to sounds within their best hearing 

range than was supposed at the time Southall et al. was 

published.135 It is both conservative and consistent with the 

methodology of that earlier paper to assume that low-frequency 

cetaceans, which have never been studied for threshold shift, 

also have greater sensitivity to sounds within their own best 

hearing range. For this reason and others, Dr. Southall and his 

St. Andrew’s colleagues reduced the threshold shift criteria for 

baleen whales exposed to airgun noise, in the report they 

recently produced for the California State Lands Commission. 

Again, BOEM should do the same. 

Hearing loss remains a very significant risk where, as here, the 

agency has not required aerial or passive acoustic monitoring as 

standard mitigation, appears unwilling to restrict operations in 

low-visibility conditions, has set safety zone bounds that are 

inadequate to protect high frequency cetaceans, and has not 

firmly established seasonal exclusion areas for biologically 

important habitat. BOEM should take a conservative approach 

and apply the more precautionary standard, once the necessary 

modifications to Southall et al. (2007) have been made.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.61 

BOEM has also failed to set appropriate take thresholds for 

sub-bottom profilers and other active acoustic sources. As 

NMFS’s Open Water Panel has indicated, some sub-bottom 

profilers used in Arctic oil and gas surveys have source levels 

and frequency ranges approaching that of certain active 

military sonar systems, with shorter intervals between pings.138

Indeed, the chirp systems analyzed in the DPEIS (DPEIS at 

D-28) have threshold source levels close to that of the Navy’s 

SQS-56 midfrequency, hull-mounted sonar.139 Additionally, 

these levels vastly exceed those analyzed for similar chirp 

systems used in HRG surveys for renewables, according to 

BOEM’s recent programmatic EA for mid-Atlantic offshore 

wind.140 BOEM’s use of a 160 dB threshold under these 

circumstances is inappropriate. While we do not recommend 

NMFS is the agency responsible for setting all marine mammal take 

thresholds under MMPA. The ability to formulate species-specific or 

species-group acoustic criteria appears to be in the near future and 

BOEM will incorporate and apply any new criteria during individual, 

site-specific analyses. As a practical matter the exclusion zones 

established as a condition for approval for permitted seismic activities 

will be based on some combination of modeled source influence. 
L-164 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

the application of the Navy’s generalized risk functions for 

mid-frequency sonar, enough data are available for some taxa 

to indicate species-specific thresholds. For purposes of 

authorizing mid-frequency sonar training, NMFS assumes that 

harbor porpoises are taken at received levels above 120 dB 

(RMS); and the Navy has adopted a 140 dB (RMS) threshold 

for beaked whales based on the findings of Tyack et al. (2011). 

At minimum, BOEM should adopt these specific thresholds for 

the midfrequency acoustic sources considered in the DPEIS. 

Furthermore, while the DPEIS does not provide ping intervals 

for sub-bottom profilers, the EA suggests that these sources 

may sound several times each second.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.62 

The DPEIS posits 230 dB (RMS) as a representative source 

level for purposes of modeling takes from large airgun arrays 

and 210 dB (RMS) for modeling takes from small arrays. 

DPEIS at 3- 26. We see two significant issues with these 

assumptions. First, as with behavioral risk thresholds, using the 

root mean square (“RMS”) rather than peak pressure to 

estimate source levels for airguns is non-conservative and may 

not be biologically appropriate. We recommend that BOEM 

use peak-pressure, or dual criteria of peak-pressure and RMS, 

to determine behavioral take for the impulsive component of 

the airgun source. Alternatively – and at the very least – BOEM 

should use the most biologically conservative method of 

determining RMS. Second, it is not self-evident that using a 

single representative or average source level for large or small 

arrays is a reasonable and sufficiently conservative approach to 

BOEM’s take analysis. BOEM should conduct a sensitivity 

analysis to ensure that any representative source level, or 

levels, chosen for modeling do not negatively bias the analysis 

towards an undercount of take. If there is negative bias, the 

agency should modify the source level, or levels, and either 

rerun the model or use a conservative corrective factor to 

estimate take.

The difference between peak sound pressure and root-mean-square (rms) 

sound pressure are noted in Appendix E. Use of rms source levels is 

specified by NMFS as the agency responsible for setting take thresholds 

under MMPA. The Programmatic EIS uses representative equipment 

and source levels because it is a programmatic analysis. Individual 

equipment may differ, and BOEM has stated that any issued BOEM 

approval for G&G activities will be conditional on the operator obtaining 

any necessary MMPA authorization prior to commencing G&G 

activities. NMFS would evaluate those applications with respect to the 

MMPA legal and regulatory requirements at that time. Appendix E has 

been revised to provide additional information about factors influencing 

the accuracy of incidental take calculations.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.63 

While the DPEIS proposes two time-areas closures to reduce 

impacts on right whales, these measures are inadequate to 

address the impacts described here, for reasons discussed 

earlier in these comments. Nor does the DPEIS provide any 

quantitative or even detailed qualitative analysis of masking 

effects or other cumulative, sub-lethal impacts on right whales. 

BOEM has again violated NEPA.

BOEM believes the time-area closures are reasonable and we have 

consulted with NMFS under the ESA to ensure that the proposed action 

would not jeopardize the continued existence of the NARW or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat (see Appendix A). Chapters 3.6.11

and 4.2.2.2 have been revised to better address the issue of cumulative 

impacts, including masking. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-165

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.64 

While the DPEIS acknowledges the potential for injury, and 

indeed allows that some marine mammals will undergo 

permanent threshold shift as a result of the activity, it 

improperly dismisses the risk of mortality and serious injury 

from acoustic impacts. First, the DPEIS fails entirely to 

consider the adverse synergistic effect that at least some types 

of anthropogenic noise can have on ship-strike risk. Second, as 

noted above (and contrary to representations in the DPEIS), a 

number of recent studies indicate that anthropogenic sound can 

induce permanent threshold shift at lower levels than 

anticipated. Third, the DPEIS wrongly discounts the potential 

for marine mammal strandings, even though at least one 

stranding event, the September 2002 stranding of beaked 

whales in the Gulf of California, is tightly correlated with 

geophysical survey activity; and even though high-intensity 

sounds in general have long been used by drive fisheries to 

force marine mammals ashore. Fourth, and finally, as noted 

above, the DPEIS makes no attempt to assess the long-term 

effects of chronic noise and noise-related stress on life 

expectancy, survival, and recruitment although proxies are 

available from the literature on terrestrial mammals and other 

sources. The DPEIS must be revised conservatively to account 

for potential mortality of marine mammals in the short- and 

long-term.

Ship-strikes are considered in Chapter 4.2.2.4, which states that it is 

expected to be negligible due to the slow nature of survey vessels and 

following the monitoring and mitigation guidelines set by BOEM and 

NMFS. Language has been added to this section to discuss the effects of 

acoustics and the potential to increase ship strike incidents. BOEM 

believes awareness and vigilance is the best mitigation to acoustic 

impacts and ship strikes. All authorizations for shipboard surveys, 

regardless of vessel size would include guidance for vessel strike 

avoidance. The guidance would be similar to NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 

(“Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012b), which incorporates 

NMFS “Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners” 

addressing protected species identification, vessel strike avoidance, and 

injured/dead protected species reporting. As described in Chapter 

2.1.2.1.1 vessel speeds within Critical Habitat from November 15 to 

April 15 and SMAs and DMAs from November 1 to April 30 will be 

required to operate within the 10 kn (18.5 km/h) speed restrictions. In 

addition, year-round vessel strike avoidance and crew members, visual 

observers/PSOs are required to maintain watch during transit to avoid 

striking marine mammals and sea turtles. BOEM further incorporates 

discussions of anthropogenic sound and permanent threshold shift (PTS) 

and other effects into it into future, site-specific analyses. BOEM and 

NMFS appreciate the recommendation to utilize the literature regarding 

chronic noise and noise-related stress and will consider it in future 

analyses. Regarding the stranding event in September 2002 of beaked 

whales in the Gulf of California, the report prepared by Dr. Roger L. 

Gentry (NMFS Office of Protected Resources) titled: Mass Stranding of 

Beaked Whales in the Galapagos Islands, April 2000 (Report Prepared: 

November 4, 2002), stated the necropsy report is inconclusive. In 

summary the report denotes, it did not find trauma of the type that is 

typically associated with acoustic sources (hemorrhage in acoustic fats, 

around the eyes or ear bones, see USDOC, NMFS and U.S. Dept. of the 

Navy; 2001). On the other hand, it did not examine the brain, which 

sometimes shows hemorrhages when animals have been exposed to 

intense sound fields. Therefore, the necropsy report can neither confirm 

nor deny acoustic injury.

It is not feasible that the sound field from the R/V Maurice Ewing

affected animals that were resident near the stranding site. Since 

spreading loss causes the intensity of a sound to drop by a factor of 

4 with each doubling of distance from the source, the level at more than 

200 nmi would have been well below the levels known to cause tissue 
L-166 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

damage in laboratory animals. There is no mechanism presently known 

by which beaked whales could have been affected by an acoustic source 

at such a distance.

It is possible that these beaked whales were exposed close to the ship and 

swam to the stranding site thereafter. Field measurements show that 

healthy marine mammals can swim at 3 m (10 ft) per second and thereby 

could cover 270 nmi (500 km; 311 mi) in 48 hours. Whether animals 

that have been disoriented or injured by an airgun array could have done 

so is not known.

Conclusions 

It is not possible to conclude whether the R/V Maurice Ewing was 

involved in this stranding. Cause and effect can only be determined 

from necropsy results which, in this case, were inconclusive. Correlation 

does not substitute for cause and effect, but it can indicate whether 

certain causes are feasible. In this case, the stranding and the seismic 

survey were correlated in time, but not in space. There is no obvious 

mechanism that bridges the distance between this source and the 

stranding site. Therefore, the cause remains indeterminate.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.65 

The document makes no attempt to analyze the cumulative and 

synergistic effects of masking, energetic costs, stress, hearing 

loss, or any of the other impact mechanisms identified over the 

last several years, whether for its own action alternatives or for 

the combined set of activities it identifies in its “cumulative 

impact scenario.” This bare-bones approach disregards 

available information and analytical methodologies that are 

clearly relevant to an analysis of reasonably foreseeable 

impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. Available information includes 

Qualitative or detailed qualitative assessment; Models of 

masking effects; Energetics; Chronic noise; Stress; and Impacts 

from other sources. The DPEIS’ summary conclusions to the 

contrary are made without support, and without even 

attempting to address data gaps through methods accepted 

within the scientific community.

See additional text in Chapters 3.6.11 and 4.2.2.2 to address this issue. 

Additional site-specific analyses will include more detailed cumulative

analyses. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.66 

For each resource, the DPEIS provides specific impact criteria, 

which are then used to determine whether the overall effect on 

the resource qualifies as “negligible,” “minor,” “moderate,” or 

“major.” DPEIS at 4-44, 4-50. Unfortunately, as the ultimate 

measure of potential effects, these descriptors, as stated and as 

applied, are problematic in the extreme. They do not 

incorporate all of the factors relevant to NEPA “significance” 

analysis; and insofar as they reflect standards embodied in 

This comment is part of comment NGO-E-10:0.67. Please see response 

to that comment.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-167

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

other statutes, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 

Endangered Species Act, they are fundamentally misapplied.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.67 

Failure to Adequately Define Impact Levels. For each 

resource, the DPEIS provides specific impact criteria, which 

are then used to determine whether the overall effect on the 

resource qualifies as “negligible,” “minor,” “moderate,” or 

“major.” DPEIS at 4-44, 4-50. Unfortunately, as the ultimate 

measure of potential effects, these descriptors, as stated and as 

applied, are problematic in the extreme. They do not 

incorporate all of the factors relevant to NEPA “significance” 

analysis; and insofar as they reflect standards embodied in 

other statutes, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 

Endangered Species /Act, they are fundamentally misapplied. 

As BOEM states at the outset, the DPEIS is intended to provide 

the information necessary for agency compliance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and 

other statutes, as well as the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

and NEPA. DPEIS at vii. Agencies are required by NEPA to 

explain how alternatives in an EIS will meet requirements of 

“other environmental laws and policies.” 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.2(d). But that does not remove the obligation to evaluate 

significance according to the factors articulated in CEQ’s 

regulations: e.g., “(3) “Unique characteristics of the 

geographic area,” including “ecologically critical areas”; (4) 

the degree to which impacts “are likely to be highly 

controversial”; and (5) the degree to which potential impacts 

“are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

CEQ guidelines specify that NEPA analyses require considerations of 

both context and intensity. The guidelines further stipulate the 

evaluation of intensity shall take into consideration 10 factors, including 

the three quoted. The analysis in the Programmatic EIS took into 

consideration both the context and intensity of impact, based on four 

parameters – detectability (i.e., measurable or detectable impact), 

duration (i.e., short-term, long-term), spatial extent (i.e., localized, 

extensive), and severity (i.e., severe, less than severe). The first of the 

three factors in question, unique characteristics of the geographic area, 

has been addressed primarily through the selection of resource categories 

considered in this programmatic baseline characterization and impact 

analysis. Of the 17 categories, the following help define the unique 

characteristics of the Area of Interest and form the basis for analysis of 

impacts: archeological resources, marine protected areas, 

geology/sediments, air and water quality, physical oceanography, and 

recreational resources. The second factor, the degree to which the 

effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly 

controversial, is also addressed through the development of affected 

resource categories. The following categories apply in this case: human 

resources and land uses, commercial and recreational fisheries, marine 

protected areas, recreational resources, and archeological resources. The 

analysis of impacts from impact-producing factors applicable to each 

resource area (see Table 4-2) form the basis on which to address the 

third factor, the degree to which the possible effects on the human 

environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 

Because the proposed actions aren’t new or unique, this Programmatic 

EIS also draws on information and analysis from past environmental 

assessment documents including the Programmatic EA for G&G 

activities in the Gulf of Mexico, the Draft EA of wind energy on the 

Atlantic OCS, as well as a series of applicable EISs covering both oil 

and gas and renewable energy activities and non-BOEM authorized 

G&G surveys conducted for scientific research (NSF, USGS, and 

NOAA). 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.68 

NEPA regulations require agencies to explain how alternatives 

meet the requirements of other applicable statutes. 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.2(d). And yet BOEM, while referencing elements of the 

MMPA’s “negligible impact” standard, does not appear to 

apply the relevant OCSLA standard, “undue harm,” anywhere 

in the DPEIS. See 43 U.S.C. § 1340(a). The omission is 

Chapter 1.6.2 of the Programmatic EIS has been edited to cite the 

OCSLA wording referenced in the comment. Specifically, 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 
L-168 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

puzzling given the DPEIS’ ostensible aim of supporting 

permitting decisions made under OCSLA. DPEIS at vii. BOEM 

should consider “undue harm” into its analysis.

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 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.” 

The EIS is a programmatic NEPA document that analyzes impacts with 

respect to context and intensity as required by NEPA regulations at 

40 CFR § 1508.27. The impact criteria and their rationale are explained 

in Chapter 4.1.2 of the Programmatic EIS. The use of impact criteria 

based on context and intensity is well established and the level of detail 

and analysis presented in the Programmatic EIS provides sufficient 

information for BOEM to evaluate individual plans and permit 

applications to ensure compliance with OCSLA requirements and 

BOEM regulations, including the specific provisions cited above. 

BOEM’s G&G permits may include stipulations to ensure that permitted 

activities meet the OCSLA requirements.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.69 

The DPEIS, having incorporated the MMPA’s “negligible 

impact” standard into its significance criteria, fails completely 

to apply it. In practice, the document does not provide, for 

example, the necessary information for determining whether 

any of the proposed alternatives will have a greater than 

negligible impact on any marine mammal stock. Instead, the 

DEIS offers qualitative conclusions, made without any 

apparent support or indeed any apparent attempt at assessing 

the cumulative impacts of the activity. For example, Level B 

takes are considered to result in only “moderate” impacts, even 

though the surveys “would affect a large number of 

individuals,” since “it is presumed that exposure to elevated 

sound would be somewhat localized and temporary in 

duration.” DPEIS at 4-55. Not only does this analysis make 

assumptions about behavioral response and take thresholds that 

are inconsistent with the available literature, it makes no 

attempt to translate short-term behavioral impacts into longterm impacts on populations – a failure that violates NEPA.

The ‘negligible’ term used in the Programmatic EIS significance criteria 

is not intended to be equivalent to the MMPA negligible determination.

The Programmatic EIS defined ‘negligible’ as “little or no 

measurable/detectable impact” whereas the MMPA regulations (50 CFR 

§ 216.103) define ‘negligible impact’ as “an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects 

on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Programmatic EIS Chapter 

4.2.2.2.1 has been revised to explain that the use of the term “negligible” 

does not imply equivalence to the MMPA definition that would be used 

by NMFS when evaluating applications for incidental take authorizations 

(ITAs) for individual surveys. BOEM has noted that operators will be 

required to satisfy the requirements of all other agencies before a permit

or authorization will be issued. Operators will be required to abide by 

any mitigation requirements stated in this Programmatic EIS, in addition 

to those included in an issued MMPA ITA or ESA ITS. The impact 

analysis in Chapter 4.2.2 has been expanded to more quantitatively 

address the long term and cumulative impacts of the proposed action on 

marine mammals. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.70 

The activities considered in the DPEIS have potential to 

detrimentally affect multiple fish species, harm vital fish 

habitat, and conflict with multiple fisheries. The DPEIS’s 

Chapter 4.2.5.2.2 and Appendix J have been revised to address this 

comment. Potential impacts on Atlantic sturgeon were evaluated in 

further detail in the Biological Assessment (see Appendix A). BOEM 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-169

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

consideration of impacts does not give adequate weight to the 

effects of repeated seismic testing and other activities on the 

behavior of fish and invertebrates. For instance, the DPEIS 

dismisses temporary hearing loss in fish as a minor effect 

without considering whether the hearing loss may be 

permanent or whether even a temporary loss of hearing renders 

the fish vulnerable to predation, unable to locate food, or 

unable to locate a mate. In addition, sublethal disturbance that 

causes fish to avoid key feeding or spawning areas could have a 

detrimental effect on the population of the species itself. For 

example, the DPEIS acknowledges that the activities it 

describes could disrupt feeding by Atlantic sturgeon, which is 

listed under the Endangered Species Act because its numbers 

are critically low. DPEIS at 4-131, 4-138. Yet it gives virtually 

no consideration to what effect disrupted feeding and effects 

benthic habitat will have when added to the species’ ongoing 

struggle to survive in severely degraded, limited habitat. The 

DPEIS does not even consider the impacts such as masking,

and silencing of fish vocalizations, may have on fish breeding 

success. For example, masking of black drum fish and toadfish 

choruses, which overlap with the low-frequency output of 

seismic airguns, could significantly impair breeding in those 

species.

incorporated the report, “Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and 

Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from Energy 

Industry Sound-Generating Activities” from the BOEM-sponsored 

workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2012). This 

report addressed hearing loss as well as effects of sound on fish 

behavior. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.71 

In the case of coastal pelagic species, also known as forage 

species, the action’s adverse effects could ripple through the 

food chain. The DPEIS acknowledges that forage species are 

often very sensitive to sound and tend to avoid the sort of noise 

generated by G&G activities. DPEIS at 4- 131. These species, 

such as herring, alewife, and others, comprise an important part 

of the diets of many predatory fish, including tuna and 

swordfish. Changes in aggregation behavior or movements of 

forage species could reduce the available food for predatory 

species, reducing their fitness and numbers and potentially 

causing them to shift their own movement patterns in response. 

Any such effects on predatory fish species would likely 

adversely affect the commercial and recreational fisheries that 

depend on them.

Based on the analysis in Chapter 4.2.5.2.2, impacts on coastal pelagic 

species (forage species) are not expected to cause significant “ripple” 

effects at higher trophic levels. Predatory species such as tuna, 

swordfish, and sharks are constantly moving and are expected to locate 

displaced prey fishes. BOEM recognizes the potential for sound to 

affect fish (prey) species and then the effect it might have on predator 

species. BOEM incorporated the report, “Effects of Noise on Fish, 

Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from 

Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities” from the BOEMsponsored workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau Associates, Inc.,

2012). This report addressed effects of sound on fish.
L-170 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.72 

Nor does the PDEIS assess the impact of G&G activities on 

invertebrates, such as cephalopods like squid and octopus, even 

though a number of studies have demonstrated that seismic and 

other low-frequency sound sources can disrupt, injure, and kill 

these taxa.170

The text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.1.2.2 and Appendix J to 

provide additional information about potential acoustic and particle 

motion impacts on invertebrates. BOEM recognizes the potential for 

sound to affect invertebrates. BOEM incorporated the Report, “Effects 

of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and 

Arctic Oceans from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities” from 

the BOEM-sponsored workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau 

Associates, Inc., 2012). This report addressed effects of sound on 

invertebrates.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.73 

Airgun surveys are known to significantly affect the 

distribution of some fish species, which can impact commercial 

and recreational fisheries and could also displace or reduce the 

foraging success of marine mammals that rely on them for 

prey. Yet the DPEIS – which acknowledging that displacement 

can increase the risk of predation, disrupt fish spawning and 

reproduction, alter migration routes, and impact feeding –

appears to assume without support that effects on both fish and 

fisheries would be localized and “minor.” PDEIS at 4-120. The 

DPEIS fails to recognize the scale of seismic survey impacts on 

commercial fish species, does not assess impacts of decreased 

prey availability on marine mammals, ignores the potential for 

acoustic impacts on Essential Fish Habitat – and, finally, fails 

to consider measures to mitigate these impacts, such as 

excluding surveys from spawning areas and other areas of 

biological importance to Arctic fish species. BOEM must 

improve its scant analysis.

BOEM recognizes the potential for sound to affect fish species important 

to commercial and recreational fisheries. BOEM incorporated the report, 

Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic 

and Arctic Oceans from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities,

from the BOEM-sponsored workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau 

Associates, Inc., 2012). This report addressed effects of sound on fish 

and fisheries. Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.5.2.2, 4.2.7.2.2, and 

4.2.8.2.2 to address this comment. The conclusions are based on 

literature review and analysis and are not unsupported assumptions.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.74 

The analysis related to the effects of climate change is faulty in 

a two key respects: (1) it fails to analyze the direct and indirect 

effects of the proposed action on climate change and ocean 

acidification, and (2) it fails to explain how the proposed action 

will impact the marine environment against the backdrop of 

ocean warming and acidification. Yet NEPA requires analysis 

of the direct and indirect effects of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) 

emissions and their consequences for climate change. Indeed, 

proposed guidance by CEQ concludes that the NEPA process 

“should incorporate consideration of both the impact of an 

agency action on the environment through the mechanism of 

GHG emissions and the impact of changing climate on that 

agency action.” First, BOEM must fully analyze the direct and 

indirect effects on climate change from the greenhouse gas 

emissions attributable to its G&G operations from vessels and 

As a program, this Agency considers the effects of GHG emissions in the 

Five-Year Leasing Program EIS. Chapter 3.3 for the current program 

(2012-2017) considers climate change and the baseline environment in 

the areas proposed for oil and gas leasing, however, the Atlantic AOI has 

not been proposed for such leasing. For the G&G surveying considered 

in this Programmatic EIS we have included climate change as part of the 

cumulative impact scenario in Chapter 3.6.10. The relevant effects are 

identified; physical and biological systems will be subject to rising water 

temperatures, changes in ice cover, pH and salinity, oxygen levels, and 

circulation. Anticipated impacts reported 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 highaltitude lakes; and range changes and earlier fish migrations in rivers. In 

the AOI, indirect effects of climate change could include altered 

migratory routes or timing for marine life or birds and the decreased 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-171

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

other sources. While the DPEIS acknowledges that survey 

vessels and aircraft involved in G&G activities would emit 

greenhouse gas pollution, it never quantifies or evaluates the 

impact of those emissions. See DPEIS at 4-4. Additionally, the 

DPEIS cannot ignore the greenhouse gases that will be released 

in to the atmosphere as a result of the oil and gas produced as a 

result of the exploration activities authorized here. NEPA 

requires that agencies consider a proposed action’s future 

indirect effects, which are those “caused by an action and are 

later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable.” The stated need for the action is to 

determine the extent and location of oil and gas reserves to 

facilitate oil and gas development. DPEIS at 1-8. Accordingly, 

BOEM must calculate not only the greenhouse gas emissions 

from the vessels and activities used for the G&G operations, 

but the impacts of the greenhouse gases emitted from the 

produced oil and gas reserves. Second, the DPEIS fails to 

explain how its G&G activities will impact marine species and 

ecosystems that are already compromised by rapid climate 

change and ocean acidification. The DPEIS’ cursory 

description of climate change and ocean acidification, which 

concludes without analysis that the environmental effects are 

likely to be small, incremental, and difficult to discern from 

effects of other natural and anthropogenic factors (DPEIS at 

3-43), falls short of the hard look required by NEPA. 

Additionally, critical habitat designation for the North Atlantic 

DPS of loggerhead sea turtles is imminent, and accordingly

BOEM should evaluate the extent to which the proposed action 

will affect areas of potential marine and beach critical habitat. 

Other coastal wildlife species are also impacted by sea level 

rise, and these effects must also be evaluated.

ability of marine life to form calcified hard parts because of lower pH in 

marine waters, and coastal estuaries and coastlines could experience 

altered configuration from rising sea level. For the temporary and 

transient duration of G&G activities and the limited impacts posed by 

vessel or aircraft deployment, we do not believe that an analysis beyond 

that provided is necessary. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.75 

Contrary to the statements in the DPEIS, the impacts of climate 

change are happening within the next decade and are already 

occurring. For the North Atlantic, ocean warming has already 

been reported as contributing to ecosystem shifts.199 Changes are 

seen from phytoplankton to zooplankton to fish and are modifying 

the dominance of species and the structure, diversity and function 

of marine ecosystems.200 These changes in biodiversity, combined 

with other impacts from fishing, oil and gas exploration and 

development, and ocean acidification, can contribute to the decline 

or extinction of species and must be analyzed in the DPEIS.

See the response to comment NGO-E-10:0.74
L-172 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.76 

BOEM must examine the impacts of its proposed project on the 

marine environment in light of changes that are already 

occurring due to ocean acidification. Especially relevant to the 

proposed project is that the oceans are becoming noisier due to 

ocean acidification.

See the response to comment NGO-E-10:0.74.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.77 

In assessing their MMPA obligations, BOEM presupposes that 

industry will apply for IHAs rather than 5-year take 

authorizations and that BOEM will not apply to NMFS for 

programmatic rulemaking. DPEIS at 1-13, 5-9. But the 

potential for mortality and serious injury bars industry from 

using the incidental harassment process to obtain take 

authorizations under the MMPA. BOEM should therefore 

consider applying to NMFS for a programmatic take 

authorization, and revise its impact and alternatives analyses in 

the EIS on the assumption that rulemaking is required.

The incidental harassment process to obtain take authorizations under the 

MMPA allows the applicant to apply for an IHA for an activity if it can 

be shown that (1) there is no potential for serious injury or mortality or 

(2) the potential for serious injury of mortality can be negated through 

mitigation requirements that could be required under the authorization. 

The tiering approach, both for NEPA and other applicable statutes, has 

been adopted to ensure that permits and authorizations are issued based 

on sufficient information. For G&G surveys, sufficient information will 

typically be available on a project-specific basis. At this time, BOEM 

has determined that it is not necessary to apply for 5 year regulations 

under the MMPA. However, if activity levels increase significantly, 

BOEM may consider applying for rulemaking in the future. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.78 

Additionally, we are concerned about BOEM’s general 

statement that an IHA “may not be necessary” for certain HRG 

surveys if operators can demonstrate that they can effectively 

monitor out to the 160 dB isopleth, which BOEM construes as 

the threshold for Level B take. DPEIS at C-15. As noted 

above, we believe that BOEM has applied the incorrect 

threshold given (1) the potential for take from mid-frequency 

sources at received levels well below 160 dB (RMS); (2) the 

demonstrated sensitivity of some species, such as harbor 

porpoises and beaked whales, requiring far lower take 

thresholds; and (3) the virtually continuous acoustic output of 

some sub-bottom profilers, which suggests that a standard 

designed for transient sounds should not be used. It is not 

possible for operators to effectively monitor out to the impact 

distances implied by these conditions; indeed, it is highly 

unlikely that operators could monitor – with the 100% efficacy 

that would be necessary – the smaller distances that BOEM 

appears to contemplate here, especially if surveys occur at 

night and other times of low visibility.

The statement in question has been reworded. BOEM does not have the 

regulatory authority to determine if an MMPA permit is necessary for 

each activity, but BOEM does require MMPA compliance within our 

own permits. Please see the revised HRG Survey Protocol in Chapter 

2.1.3.2 and Appendix C, Section 3.3.2. Please also see the responses to 

comments FA-L-1:0.06 and FA-L-1:0.07, and refer to Appendix A. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.79 

The DPEIS indicates that BOEM has begun the consultation 

process, and that a Biological Opinion, if issued, will be 

included as an appendix to the final document. To be sure, the 

consultation should include every listed marine mammal, sea 

turtle, fish, and seabird species in the region, but the agencies 

The Biological Opinion issued by NMFS can be found in Appendix A. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-173

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

should spend particular attention on the North Atlantic right 

whale. Without substantial additional mitigation, NMFS 

cannot legally issue a no-jeopardy opinion for this species. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.80 

In order to comply with the ESA, BOEM must select an 

alternative that sufficiently protects the right whale, its 

designated critical habitat, and all known migratory corridors, 

feeding areas, calving and nursery grounds. The seasonal 

exclusion proposed in Alternative A would not avoid jeopardy, 

nor would the additional exclusion (though superior) proposed 

in Alternative B.

BOEM has conducted Section 7 consultation with NMFS to ensure 

required compliance with the ESA and has selected Alternative B as the 

Preferred Alternative through this NEPA process. BOEM believes that 

this alternative provides the necessary protection for the NARW. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.81 

The DPEIS acknowledges the multi-stage nature of consistency 

review under the CZMA, but does not indicate that BOEM will 

undergo review at the present stage. See 5-8 to 5-9. BOEM 

must. 

As a programmatic document this EIS will not be used to seek a 

consistency statement under CZMA. Future site-specific projects will be 

evaluated for consistency with applicable State’s CZMA plans as 

outlined in Chapter 1.7.5 and Chapter 5.7.1. 

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.82 

Perhaps most pressingly, BOEM must include New Jersey –

which is omitted from the DPEIS’ distribution list (DPEIS at 

5-6) – among the affected coastal states. Further, BOEM must 

acknowledge the full scope of activity that would affect coastal 

resources under the CZMA, for purposes of satisfying this 

important provision at both the planning and permitting stages.

As a programmatic document, this EIS will not be used to seek a 

consistency statement under CZMA. The Programmatic EIS has 

provided as full and complete a description of future G&G activity 

within the AOI as is possible, given available information. Future sitespecific actions will provide more detailed information to determine if 

the actions of a particular proposed project require consistency under a 

state (or states) CZMA plan.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.83 

It is crucial that BOEM provide a thorough analysis of the 

proposed action’s effects on the myriad coastal resources that 

State programs are designed to protect. Without such a 

thorough analysis, it is impossible for the states to assess the 

validity of any consistency determination BOEM issues. In its 

final PEIS, BOEM must present these missing alternatives and 

information, and give State CZM programs sufficient time to 

assess the information and the proposed actions’ consistency 

with their enforceable policies.

As a programmatic document, this Programmatic EIS will not be used to 

seek a consistency statement under CZMA. Future site-specific actions 

will provide more detailed information to determine if the actions of a 

particular proposed project require consistency under a State (or States) 

CZMA plan. A summary of the CZMA program and its requirements 

for each of the States bordering the Area of Interest is provided in 

Appendix B of the Programmatic EIS. Further, BOEM cannot authorize 

activities within State waters. However, the coastal resources that may 

occur there have been considered in this Programmatic EIS.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.84 

In compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act. Accordingly, and as the 

DPEIS anticipates, BOEM must consult with the Secretary of 

Commerce through NMFS and the Mid- Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Fisheries Management Councils. DPEIS at 5-9.

Chapter 5.7.4 provides information about EFH consultation. BOEM 

sought EFH consultation under the MSFCMA. 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 this time. 

In response, BOEM has proposed each activity that occurs under this 

proposed action would receive an environmental review including an 

EFH assessment from BOEM.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.85 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires agencies whose 

actions are “likely to injure a sanctuary resource” to consult 

with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (“ONMS”). 

BOEM understands the consultation process, and as stated in Chapter 

1.6.15, because the review under this document is programmatic in 

nature and does not address project-specific information regarding 
L-174 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Under the consultation scheme, BOEM is required to prepare a 

Sanctuary Resource Statement; if ONMS determines that the 

statement is complete and that injury is indeed likely, it must 

prepare recommended alternatives to the proposed action, 

which may include relocation, rescheduling, or use of 

alternative technologies or procedures. To ensure compliance 

with the consultation provision, BOEM should keep several 

critical points in mind. BOEM should not consider itself 

subject to consultation only if its permitting activities 

physically injure a marine animal within sanctuary boundaries. 

The permitting of any seismic survey likely to degrade the 

acoustic environment of the Monitor or Gray’s Reef NMS, or 

(given the best available science on scuba diver aversion to 

low-frequency sound) raise noise levels within the sanctuaries 

above 145 dB (SPL), is subject to consultation under the Act. 

In addition, we strongly encourage BOEM to tier consultation 

with the sanctuaries.

potential impacts to sanctuaries, it will not result in a permit application 

under the NMSA. Our approach to NMFS consultations on a sitespecific basis is explained in Chapters 1.7.5 and 5.7.6. BOEM has 

coordinated with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS) and since NOAA is a cooperating agency on this Programmatic 

EIS, ONMS also cooperates by provided review, comment, and 

guidance. Future, site-specific proposals will be reviewed by BOEM to 

ensure NMSA standards or permit requirements are met and that agreedupon measures will avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse 

effects. BOEM is committed to continuing to work with ONMS on 

future activities.

Michael Jasny, 

NRDC

NGOE-10 0.86 

The intrusion of oil and gas exploration into the communities 

of the Atlantic Coast will seriously impact the economies of 

clean ocean uses. The proposed action will lead to the direct 

displacement of commercial and recreational fishermen and 

will likely impact long-term ecotourism and coastal cultural 

values. Therefore, BOEM has the responsibility to protect the 

economies and ecosystems of the Atlantic Ocean under a 

program of improved understanding, stakeholder engagement, 

and science-based decision making. This DPEIS does not 

achieve any of these goals, does not represent good ocean 

governance, and does not represent the use of good science.

The proposed action is only G&G surveys, it does not include any 

activities related to oil and gas exploration and development. The 

assessment contained in the Programmatic EIS analyzes the impacts of 

G&G surveys only. Further, BOEM, working with NOAA, has

developed the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, an integrated marine 

information system that provides legal, physical, ecological, and cultural 

information in a common geographic information system framework 

(see http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Mapping-andData/Multi-Purpose-Marine-Cadastre-Map-Viewer/Index.aspx). This 

program enables multi-use of the ocean. BOEM recognizes the potential 

for sound to affect fish species important to commercial and recreational 

fisheries. BOEM incorporated the report, Effects of Noise on Fish, 

Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from 

Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities, from the BOEMsponsored workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau Associates, Inc.,

2012). At this workshop, BOEM reached out to fisheries, as well as the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which advised this 

workshop and provided input for the report. BOEM is committed to 

continuing to reach out to the public, including to commercial and 

recreational fishermen.

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.01 

BOEM needs to acknowledge the connection between 

geological and geophysical activities and future 

extraction/development activities (oil and gas, renewable 

energy, and marine minerals) and evaluate whether locations 

BOEM was directed by Congress to conduct a Programmatic EIS to 

evaluate potential significant environmental effects of multiple G&G 

activities in the Atlantic OCS. The scope of this Programmatic EIS does 

not include a NEPA analysis that evaluates a specific proposal for oil 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-175

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

within the Area of Interest (AOI) are appropriate or 

inappropriate for both sets of activities. BOEM needs to 

consider exploration and drilling as closely interconnected 

activities whenever possible, most especially with regards to 

spatially explicit avoidance measures within an overall 

mitigation framework (discussed in more detail under the 

Mitigation and Amended Alternatives sections below). BOEM 

can avoid some adverse impacts to marine mammals and other 

fauna by not permitting exploration activities in areas that are 

unsuitable for future development. 

and gas leasing in the AOI and does not authorize an OCS lease sale. 

The procedures under the OSCLA to set up a lease sale 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. BOEM 

acknowledges that there are connections between G&G activities and 

future development locations, but not in a sense that would allow us to 

define in advance locations within the AOI that are appropriate or 

inappropriate for both sets of activities as indicated in this comment. 

Broad scale seismic surveys are needed to help identify prospective 

locations for oil and gas development. The scope of individual seismic 

surveys is not determined by BOEM but by the survey operators who 

have submitted applications based on what they believe industry interest 

may be, and what data sets they may be able to market. In addition, 

broad scale seismic surveys provide geological data that helps to identify 

and map regional structures, even if some of the areas surveyed would 

not be suitable for future exploration drilling. G&G surveys in support 

of renewable energy and marine minerals programs would be conducted 

only at specific sites identified by developers or agencies, and by 

definition these sites would be at least potentially suitable for the 

proposed development or use. Chapter 3.0 identifies the likely depth 

ranges for renewable energy and marine minerals activities. Finally, 

HRG site surveys, whether for oil and gas, renewable energy, or marine 

minerals development, are essential in identifying sensitive benthic 

communities, archaeological resources, and other features for avoidance. 

Locations of many such features are not known until a geophysical 

survey is conducted.

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.02 

BOEM needs to employ the full hierarchy of mitigation actions 

in all the alternatives it evaluates to ensure that it avoids, 

minimizes, and offsets impacts to species and habitats. The 

DPEIS fails to utilize the full sequence of mitigation actions, 

and this deficiency means that impacts to both habitats and 

species, including protected species, will be greater in number 

and severity than is necessary. In summary, the deficiencies 

are as follows: Avoidance - While the Conservancy 

appreciates that the DPEIS does include some spatially explicit 

avoidance measures, these exclusions areas are currently too 

small and too narrowly defined. Many more areas merit 

exclusion from at least some portion of the proposed action. 

Minimization – By rejecting a full analysis and the 

incorporation of a number of different technology-based 

As summarized in Appendix C, the mitigation in the proposed action is 

extensive and includes both avoidance (e.g., time-area closures, guidance 

for vessel strike avoidance, and avoidance of sensitive seafloor 

resources) and impact minimization (e.g., the Seismic Airgun Survey 

Protocol, HRG Survey Protocol, etc.). Compensatory mitigation is 

typically the lowest priority in the mitigation hierarchy. The EIS does 

not include any compensatory (offset) mitigation measures and there is 

no NEPA requirement to do so. However, each individual survey will be 

subject to a NEPA analysis that evaluates impacts on a site- and projectspecific basis, and that would be the appropriate place to consider the 

full hierarchy of mitigation actions: avoidance, minimization, and 

potentially compensatory mitigation as necessary.

The comment letter notes that BOEM has included relatively few 

avoidance areas because the analysis is limited to those impacts 
L-176 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

minimization measures, the DPEIS misses an opportunity to 

reduce impacts to sensitive resources. Offsets – Lastly, despite 

the fact the DPEIS highlights a number of unavoidable impacts, 

including impacts to threatened and endangered species, the 

document fails to provide any description of appropriate 

measures to compensate for those impacts.

specifically related to G&G activities and recommends several additional 

avoidance areas based on sensitivity to future “extraction and 

construction activities” that may follow. However, the Programmatic 

EIS rightly focuses on the activities included in the proposed action. 

Future activities such as oil and gas development would require a 

separate lease sale EIS, and that would be the appropriate time to 

consider additional avoidance areas based on the potential impacts of 

that proposed action. 

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.03 

BOEM should develop additional alternatives that locate 

different activities within different portions of the AOI and 

phase in lease and permit requirements based on available 

technologies and adaptive management. A more diverse suite 

of Alternatives would recognize that the AOI is very large and 

quite diverse, the time period covered by this PEIS (2012-

2020) is fairly long, and the program areas (oil and gas, 

renewable energy, and marine minerals) encompassed are 

highly variable. Thus, BOEM should develop additional 

alternatives that: Acknowledge that the AOI is not a single, 

monolithic area, but instead contains a great diversity of human 

uses and ecological resources. Those uses and many of those 

resources have defined locations that can be mapped (see our 

proposed avoidance areas on Map 1-3 as an example). Thus, 

BOEM should evaluate the appropriateness of geological and 

geophysical activities in different portions of the AOI based at 

least in part on the location and compatibility of other uses and 

ecological resources. Use the full time period of the PEIS to 

phase in certain requirements based on the availability of new 

technologies and/or operational changes based on adaptive 

management (see Monitoring and Adaptive Management 

section below); Recognize that differing program areas require 

different sorts of data, distinctions that also can have spatial 

ramifications.

The AOI is large and ecologically diverse and it is part of BOEM's 

mission under the OCSLA Section 18(H)(3) to select the timing and 

location of leasing so as to obtain a proper balance between the potential 

for environmental damage and the potential for the discovery of oil and 

gas. A programmatic evaluation looks at the area where proposed 

impacts could occur without extracting or exempting parcels in areas 

with special designations. Those areas of special designation have been 

designated as marine sanctuaries or critical habitat by the agency 

responsible for making that judgment. Our approach to adaptive 

management with respect to the conduct of prelease geological and 

geophysical exploration is expressed in Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C,

Section 7. 

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.04 

BOEM needs to continue to work hard to close existing data 

gaps and, wherever possible, make publically available nonproprietary data from geological and geophysical surveys and 

associated protected species observer programs. As the 

Conservancy highlighted at some length in our May 17, 2010 

comment letter, we remain concerned that BOEM does not 

have the data necessary for a comprehensive and thorough 

assessment of environmental impacts associated with 

geological and geophysical activities in the Mid- and South 

A critical part of BOEM's mission is protecting the environment while 

ensuring the safe development of the nation’s offshore energy and 

marine mineral resources. The Environmental Studies Program within 

BOEM develops, conducts and oversees scientific research to inform 

policy decisions regarding development of Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) energy and mineral resources. Research covers physical 

oceanography, atmospheric sciences, biology, protected species, social 

sciences and economics, submerged cultural resources and 

environmental fates and effects. Further information is provided on the 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-177

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Atlantic Planning Areas. As funding for these efforts is 

obviously a concern, we encourage BOEM to utilize fully its 

existing authorities (or work with Congress if those are not 

sufficient) to secure a small portion of any future lease revenue 

specifically for data collection and analysis efforts. Continued 

investments in independent research and monitoring through its 

Environmental Studies program appear to be an especially 

important effort for BOEM to be able to greatly minimize data 

gaps in the future.

BOEM website at http://www.boem.gov/Studies/. Nonproprietary data 

and studies are made publicly available. 

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.05 

BOEM needs to outline a transparent and rigorous adaptive 

management framework, including the mandated incorporation 

of new technologies and improved mitigation measures. 

A discussion of Adaptive Management is provided in Chapter 1.7.6 and 

Appendix C, Section 7. A discussion of adaptive management is 

provided that would facilitate changes to existing mitigation measures or 

the application of new mitigation measures and encouragement of new 

technologies. 

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.06 

BOEM needs to improve its cumulative impacts analysis so it 

is clear that moderate to major impacts have not been 

overlooked. It is unclear to the Conservancy, however, what 

methodology BOEM used to assign an overall vulnerability 

ranking to any particular species. The DPEIS reports that the 

Acoustic Integration Model (Section 2.1.3.2) was used to 

calculate incidental take in the proposed actions scenarios. 

However, it is unclear whether this model was used when 

determining impacts in the cumulative activities scenario. 

Further, it appears that each impact-producing factors (IPF) 

included in the cumulative impact scenario for a given species 

or group of species was assessed one at a time. What seems to 

be lacking in the cumulative impact scenario is a complete 

assessment of how all of the IPFs together will impact the 

viability of the species. The participants in the Okeanos 

workshop developed new approaches to modeling and mapping 

cumulative impacts of noise on both marine mammal 

populations and individuals, and they stressed that once 

vulnerability scores are assigned for each impact, then 

vulnerability measures should be “weighted and combined into 

an overall vulnerability score” (Wright, 2009). The analysis in 

the DPEIS seems to fall short of this step. Thus, the 

Conservancy submits that it is very difficult to determine 

whether or not a number of negligible to minor impacts to a 

species or group of species add up to a moderate to major 

cumulative impact. The Conservancy recommends that BOEM 

either clarify the methodology and analysis in the DPEIS or 

The impact analysis in Chapter 4.2.2 has been revised to address the 

issue of how all of the IPFs together would affect marine mammals. 

Chapters 3.6 and 4.1.3 have been revised to further define the scope of 

activities included in the cumulative impacts analysis, and the 

cumulative analysis for marine mammals in Chapter 4.2.2.4 has been 

expanded. The AIM© model was not used for evaluating cumulative 

impacts, only for the activities included in the proposed action. AIM©

was not developed for modeling continuous noise signals, or how animal 

exposure to background or ambient noise levels may affect them. The 

Okeanos Workshop (Wright, 2009) presents initial recommendations for 

a framework to assess cumulative impacts of underwater noise, but it is 

clearly intended as a starting point for further development, not a formal 

methodology or protocol. The workshop’s cover letter states that the 

participants “began to develop a novel set of tools for assessing the 

cumulative effects of human activities, including undersea noise from all 

sources, on cetaceans” and also refers to “this emerging methodology.” 
L-178 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

redo the cumulative impacts analysis consistent with the 

recommendations and protocols outlined in the report from the 

2009 Okeanos workshop.

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.07 

The Conservancy strongly supports CMSP as a key tool in the 

President’s vision of a national policy for our ocean, coasts, 

and Great Lakes and is actively involved in advancing the 

policy and practice of CMSP. As we have stressed in previous 

comments to BOEM on proposed programs for oil and gas and 

various evaluations of wind energy projects, we do not expect 

BOEM to delay action on this PEIS until the relevant Regional 

Planning Bodies develop comprehensive regional ocean plans 

encompassing the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. 

We do suggest, however, that BOEM continued to align its 

planning, review, and leasing activities with the 

recommendations of the interagency task force, including the 

twelve national guiding principles for CMSP.

The final recommendations released by the Interagency Ocean Policy 

Task Force established the direction for improved stewardship of the 

ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Regional planning councils have 

been established to encourage States, Tribes, localities, and Federal 

agencies to collaborate in an inclusive manner to address issues that 

regions identify as important. BOEM, as an agency of the U.S. 

Department of Interior will work to ensure the guiding principles of the 

CMSP are incorporated into the planning process.

David Phemister, 

Nature 

Conservancy 

NGOE-9 0.08 

Monitoring and adaptive management As we stated in our 

May 17, 2010 comment letter, the Conservancy recommends 

that all alternatives considered in the PEIS stipulate robust 

monitoring plans to determine actual impacts on marine 

resources, the effectiveness of mitigation measures, and what 

steps BOEM needs to take to adaptively manage where and 

under what conditions geological and geophysical activities 

occur in the future.

BOEM has added a discussion of Adaptive Management to the 

Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7). As part 

of its Adaptive Management program BOEM intends to review the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures based on monitoring data collected 

by PSOs during G&G surveys for example. BOEM will use the 

Adaptive Management process to refine and improve our protective 

measures.

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.01a 

This EA has used inadequate data to estimate the effects of oil 

and gas seismic operations off the mid-Atlantic on marine 

mammals. Consequently, it provides completely unreliable 

estimates of “takes” with no confidence intervals, and makes 

unwarranted assumptions about animal “takes” and responses 

to noise, and the consequences of displacement. These 

unknowns and assumptions could lead to serious problems for 

several endangered whale species, as well as delays in 

permitting and construction. The entire draft EA and 

estimation analyses are dependent upon an extremely sparse 

dataset. By restricting the marine mammal assessments to the 

Navy’s Nodes database, which is based on data from a very 

limited number of NMFS shipboard surveys in the area (which 

are mostly limited to the summer months), there arise several 

problems. First, there is no scientific basis for extrapolating the 

modeled marine mammal densities to areas where there are no 

surveys. Second, the use of the AIM model to extrapolate 

BOEM recognizes that limited data are available to estimate marine 

mammal densities for impact calculations. Appendix E has been revised 

to provide additional discussion of the limitations of the existing data 

and uncertainty associated with the overall modeling effort. It is agreed 

that it would be ideal to have marine mammal surveys that have been 

conducted in all seasons, but the use of habitat modeling to extrapolate 

survey data to seasons and regions with little or no survey effort is well 

established (Redfern et al., 2006). BOEM also acknowledges that there 

are limitations to our understanding of animal movement in the Area of 

Interest, but recognizes that the best available data were used to 

approximate the movement of animals, which is a better modeling 

scenario than stationary animals. The NODE database is an existing 

compiled dataset that encompasses most of the Area of Interest and has 

been used in previous impact analyses by the Navy including the EIS for 

Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training. We recognize that there are 

additional datasets covering portions of the area, and we agree with the 

observation that “there should be some more advanced thinking and 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-179

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

animal movements within the mid-Atlantic region is 

inappropriate. Third, the extrapolation of primarily warm 

weather surveys to the winter months is inappropriate. Fourth, 

the selection of the data for the density model runs eliminates a 

large collection of datasets for many areas within the midAtlantic area. There should be some more advanced thinking 

and analysis devoted to integrating the multiple datasets 

available. Also, model results should be presented with 

confidence intervals around the final numbers... The takehome message from this review of the models and the data is 

that the approach needs considerable refinement, but mostly it 

needs some data. BOEM should support the NMFS proposed 

AMAPPS program to the fullest extent originally proposed, 

which includes surveys over the entire area in all four seasons. 

analysis devoted to integrating the multiple datasets available.” That is 

why BOEM is working in partnership with NOAA, the FWS, and the 

U.S. Navy to develop better data sets for the future through the 

AMAPPS program. The data and tools it is developing will be used to 

support future, site-specific evaluations of individual survey 

applications. In addition, we recognize that the incidental take 

methodology has room for refinement – most importantly, the 

incorporation of new acoustic criteria when they are issued by NMFS. 

BOEM has added a discussion of Adaptive Management to the 

Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7) to 

indicate our commitment to incorporating new information and 

improving the data and methodologies to support decision-making for 

individual NEPA evaluations. BOEM does not believe it is realistic to 

develop confidence limits for incidental take estimates at this time for 

several reasons. First, incidental take applications and authorizations 

generally do not contain this information. Second, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to calculate confidence limits for Level A takes because we 

expect them to be avoided to the extent practicable through mitigation. 

As noted in Appendix E, we estimated Level A takes without mitigation 

(other than time-area closures), which is the typical method used in 

incidental take requests and IHAs. Finally, with respect to Level B 

harassment takes, we note that the current NMFS criterion for pulsed 

sources (160 dB re 1 μPa) is widely recognized as a very simplistic 

predictor of behavioral responses and there is much ongoing research 

and discussion to develop refined behavioral criteria. Therefore, we 

believe that calculating confidence limits for numbers of Level B 

harassment takes would imply a level of quantification and statistical 

certainty that does not currently exist. 

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.01b

 

Right Whale Migration. All of the proposed G&G activity in 

the mid-Atlantic has the potential to alter the path of right 

whales migrating southward to the calving grounds (while 

pregnant), and returning northward in the late winter with their 

newborn calves. Although the exact path of migration is not 

known, the limited tagging and sightings data places most right 

whale records between 5 and 30 miles offshore along the entire 

mid-Atlantic. Therefore, the expanded time-area closure 

described in the EA’s alternative B is the only reasonable 

alternative to provide some protection for the most vulnerable 

component of this population, pregnant females, and mothers 

with newborn calves

BOEM has identified Alternative B as the Agency’s Preferred 

Alternative. Alternative B includes a 20-nmi closure along the entire 

Area of Interest to minimize the potential for impacts on right whale 

migration from seismic airgun surveys. Also, as requested by NMFS, 

Chapter 2.1.2.1 has been revised to indicate that if the right whale 

critical habitat or SMAs boundaries are changed, BOEM would revise 

the closure areas to align with those boundaries. BOEM has also added 

a discussion of Adaptive Management to the Programmatic EIS 

(Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7), and if a compelling reason 

developed to consider expanding the seaward limit for this area, such as 

a better understanding of the migration routes for the NARW or other 

marine mammals, on the basis of adaptive management we would 

consider it in future decision-making.
L-180 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.01c

 

Acoustic Disturbance. The EIS appears to widely 

underestimate the long distance capability of G & G seismic 

work to alter the behavior of large whales. The EIS estimates 

the acoustic level B disturbance levels of boomers, placing the 

Rmax at slightly over 15 km. Recent analyses of pile driving 

for wind farm construction off the Scottish coast showed that 

potential for sound levels high enough to cause behavioral 

disturbance extended up to 50 km from the construction site 

(Bailey et al. 2010). Humpback whales song recorded on the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary were significantly 

reduced when animals were exposed to the transmissions of an 

Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Experiment (peak @400 Hz at 

~225 dB source level) about 200 km away from the animals 

(Risch et al., 2012). Both finback whales (Balaenoptera 

physalus) and blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) have 

respectively been shown to have both behavioral and acoustic 

changes in response to low frequency sonar (Croll et al., 2001) 

and seismic surveys (Di Iorio and Clark, 2010). Castellote et al 

(2012) showed both displacement and acoustic behavioral 

changes by finback whales in response to seismic noise levels, 

and suggested that these behavioral changes could adversely 

affect reproduction and survival. In addition, there is limited 

reference to the responses of right whales to low frequency 

noise (Parks et al. 2007, 2008) and novel sounds (Nowacek, et 

al. 2004), as well as the potential large scale impacts on right 

and other whales from increased industrial noise in the oceans 

(Clark et al., 2007; Tyack, 2008, Nowacek, et al., 2007, and 

Rolland et al., 2012). These omissions mean that the EIS does 

not consider the emerging body of literature that suggests 

significant impacts from anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals, and in particular, the effects of louder low frequency 

noises from seismic exploration on large whales.

Sound profiles from pile driving activities, the Ocean Acoustic 

Waveguide, and directional low frequency sonar differ from seismic 

airguns. The analyses within the EIS of potential impacts from proposed 

activities to marine mammals were based on incidental take estimates 

that were calculated using currently accepted practices, including current 

spatial and temporal density estimates and available behavioral 

information by species, sound source propagation modeling to estimate 

injurious (180 dB) and non-injurious (160 dB) acoustic threshold radii 

(integrated to estimate areas). Recent literature suggests that individual 

mammals, such as baleen whales, may demonstrate behavioral effects 

during seismic surveys at distances that are greater than the modeled 

160-dB radii. These responses indicate an error in sound propagation 

modeling methods and/or the onset of behavioral response at lower 

sound levels than 160 dB. References have been added to the EIS in 

Chapter 4.2.2, to consider this emerging body of literature.

Additionally, as new information becomes available it may be 

considered at the site/permit specific level.

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.01d

 

Cumulative Impacts. The EIS is silent on the cumulative 

impacts of this and two other major activity expansions in the 

Atlantic OCS areas. These three activities include 1) 

alternative energy leasing and construction, 2) Navy activities, 

including the proposed expansion of operations areas along the 

east coast of the U.S., and 3) the G & G seismic assessments in 

the mid and south Atlantic areas. The EIS for each of these 

projects should include a cumulative (and additive) assessment 

of all of these activities combined, since it is clear that they will 

The Programmatic EIS provides a cumulative impact analysis in 

Chapter 4.2.2.4. The analysis has been revised to address this 

comment. The cumulative analysis has been expanded to provide a more 

quantitative consideration of cumulative incidental takes from various 

activities such as those indicated, including U.S. Navy operations. Also, 

the impact calculations in Appendix E did take into account the 

possibility of multiple seismic surveys occurring at the same time.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-181

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

occur simultaneously. The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires exactly this kind of analysis.

In addition, the EIS indicates that several seismic surveys could 

be underway simultaneously in the region. If this were the 

case, the actual potential for displacement and disturbance of 

marine mammals may be much larger than the EIS suggests. 

The cumulative impact of multiple seismic surveys are likely to 

have significant effects on regional populations of marine 

mammals, and may have serious consequences for right whales 

(See Stone and Tasker, 2006; Clark et al, 2007;2009; Parks et 

al, 2007; 2008; Tyack, 2008).

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.01e

 

Mitigation (Appendix C). The proposed mitigation plan does 

not begin to approach minimal standards for scientific 

observation data collection. Professional survey teams in both 

aerial and shipboard surveys are usually considered capable of 

covering approximately one square mile of ocean within a 

quadrant. For the G & G surveys, two observers on a vessel for 

mitigation observation is not adequate, since observation hours 

(especially during the summer months) may be 12 hours or 

more, and observers need a break at least every two hours. At a 

minimum, if seismic surveys are to be contingent upon the 

presence or absence of marine mammals, appropriate scientific 

survey and observation methods should be employed, 

calculating the area to be mitigated as a starting point, and then 

taking into account the sightability of different species, as well 

as sighting conditions such as height of eye, sea state, and 

visibility, as well as the limitations of observers. From such 

calculations, one can determine an appropriate observation 

strategy for the activity, and then determine the number of 

observers needed to adequately mitigate the acoustic 

disturbance. A revision of the mitigation strategy along these 

lines is critical for G&G surveys, permitting, construction 

planning, and BOEMs long term planning for offshore 

development.

Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix C, Section 3.2 for seismic 

surveys follow current requirements by NMFS for geophysical 

contractors when conducting seismic surveys within the Gulf of Mexico. 

These procedures are detailed in the NTL 2012-JOINT-G02 

(“Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program”) (USDOI, BOEM and BSEE, 2012a). This 

NTL clarifies how a geophysical contractor should implement seismic 

survey mitigation measures, including ramp-up procedures, the use of a 

minimum sound source, airgun testing and protected species observation 

and reporting. It is assumed that these regulations will also be utilized 

for future operations within the Atlantic OCS Planning Areas. 

Alternative B, BOEM's Preferred Alternative, requires PAM for airgun 

surveys and use of PSOs and visual observers for acoustic exclusion 

zone and vessel strike avoidance monitoring. Since the Draft 

Programmatic EIS was released the Seismic Airgun Survey and HRG 

Survey Protocols have been clarified. The Protocols specify that PSOs 

must have completed a training course, and based on our experience with 

the same requirement used in the Gulf of Mexico, we expect that PSOs 

would have meaningful field experience. PSOs shall operate under the 

following guidelines: 

(1) other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no 

additional duties shall be assigned to observers during their watch; 

(2) a watch shall be no longer than four consecutive hours; 

(3) a break of at least two hours shall occur between watches, no other 

duties shall be assigned during this period; and

(4) a PSO’s combined watch schedule shall not exceed 12 hours during a 

24-hour period.

A minimum of two PSO observers are required for airgun surveys. A 

minimum of one PSO observed is required for non airgun HRG sources 

operating at frequencies below 200 kHz observers. For non airgun 
L-182 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

HRG sources operating at frequencies above 200 kHz visual observers 

would monitor a vessel strike exclusion zone during transit. Through 

Adaptive Management as outlined in Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, 

Section 7, BOEM could revise the protocol requirements in the future if 

new data show that changes are warranted. 

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.02 

BOEM should support the NMFS AMAPPS and other surveys 

as needed across the entire oil and gas call region in all seasons, 

BOEM is a partner with NOAA, FWS, and the U.S. Navy in conducting 

AMAPPS program. We agree the data and tools it is developing will be 

very beneficial to estimating densities of marine mammals to support 

future, site/permit-specific NEPA evaluations of individual survey 

applications.

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.03 

Use the newly acquired sightings data to support updated 

modeling efforts to bring the estimates of density and “takes” 

up to contemporary scientific standards,

The new Atlantic cetacean density data from AMAPPS was not available 

when the Programmatic EIS was finalized. However, as a partner in the 

AMAPPS program, BOEM intends to use the density estimates when they 

become available to support future, site/permit-specific NEPA evaluations 

of individual survey applications. BOEM has also added a discussion of 

Adaptive Management to the Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.7.6 and 

Appendix C, Section 7) to indicate our commitment to improving our 

future decision-making based on new information and experience.

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.04 

Conduct a review of the right whale migratory patterns, and 

consider additional distance restrictions on the use of seismic 

activities within 50 km the coast during the migratory season,

BOEM considered additional distance restrictions, but after analysis 

determined that a 20-nmi time-area closure provides a credible protective 

measure for NARW and other marine mammal species transiting through 

to critical habitats at either end of their north-south seasonal migration. 

Therefore, BOEM decided to keep the 20-nmi time-area closure as 

proposed for Alternative B. BOEM’s resource evaluation staff in their 

2011 Atlantic OCS Resource Assessment (USDOI, BOEM, 2012) 

projected geological play types that would benefit by expansive 2D or 

3D seismic surveys along the North Carolina coastal area. Such surveys 

tend to require long periods at sea to complete and a time-area closure 

beyond 20 nmi imposes a restriction on access to potential resource area 

that is not justified on the basis of available information. The 20 nmi 

zone outward from shoreline and the seasons to which it applied was 

based on NOAA’s vessel speed restriction rule (50 CFR § 224.105). As 

requested by NMFS, Chapter 2.1.2.1 has been revised to indicate that if 

the right whale CH or SMAs boundaries are changed, BOEM would 

revise the closure areas to align with those boundaries. BOEM has also 

added a discussion of Adaptive Management to the Programmatic EIS 

(Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7), and if a compelling reason 

developed to consider expanding the seaward limit for this area, such as 

a better understanding of the migration routes for the NARW or other 

marine mammals, on the basis of adaptive management we would 

consider it in future decision-making. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-183

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.05 

Conduct a true cumulative effects assessment, that includes oil 

and gas seismic operations, wind farm construction and 

operations, cable laying operations, and newly proposed navy 

operation areas, all of which will be occurring in the midAtlantic, and where the combined effects will be biologically 

cumulative and potentially damaging,

Chapter 4.2.2.4 has been revised to address this comment. The 

cumulative analysis has been expanded to provide a more quantitative 

consideration of cumulative incidental takes from various activities such 

as those indicated, including U.S. Navy operations. 

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.06 

Develop a scientifically based mitigation plan that has adequate 

observers, survey coverage, contingencies that account for 

species differences and sighting conditions, 

While mitigation observer data should be conducted using acceptable 

scientific methods, the purpose of the observation is to implement 

specific mitigation protocols. This observation must focus on a critical 

assessment zone and on the species identified to be at special risk of 

impact. The observer protocols are designed to allow the most effective 

implementation scenario during full operations and within the constraints 

of a commercial seismic survey. The GOM observer guidelines (most 

recently issued as NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, January 1, 2012) provide a 

baseline for data collection and survey methods. The number, 

observation schedule and survey area will be determined as part of the 

permitted mitigation plan for each project and will be based on the 

mentioned physical and biological parameters necessary for effective 

monitoring of the expected species. Permitting reviews will take into 

account appropriate observation standards for each project. Physical 

conditions that affect sight ability are taken into account in the data 

collection process. BOEM has also added a discussion of Adaptive 

Management to the Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, 

Section 7) and would use that process to refine the mitigation protocol if 

warranted based on new survey data, sighting reports, or other 

information. In addition, the Programmatic EIS uses the best available 

information to identify mitigation plans for reducing or eliminating the 

potential for adverse effects. The Programmatic EIS also notes, where 

applicable, limits to our scientific knowledge about the effectiveness of 

certain mitigations. Further, each site-specific permit will require 

additional analyses to adjust mitigation based on the best available 

information at that time. 

Scott Kraus, New 

England Aquarium

NGOE-13 0.07 

Use updated data to identify biologically sensitive areas where 

no G & G activities should occur.

We recognize that additional time-area closures or other mitigation 

measures may be identified in the future based on new data. Each sitespecific permit will require additional analyses to adjust mitigation based 

on the best available information at that time.
L-184 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.01 

The words “negligible,” “minor,” and “moderate” indicate 

value judgments which while they are sometimes backed up 

through more detailed discussions in Vol. 1 Chapter 4 using 

citations, these citations do not track consistently and clearly 

back to the summary impact assessments. We feel that any 

assessment in the DEIS should be directly backed up with 

either peer reviewed literature or some other qualified 

accountability. The words “negligible” and “minor” in the 

DEIS should be always traceable to peer reviewed papers that 

substantiate the particulars of the specific evaluation.

NEPA requires consideration of both the context and intensity in 

determining impact significance (40 CFR § 1508.27). However, there is 

no quantitative, qualitative, consistent, or agreed-upon measure of 

adequacy for NEPA with respect to characterizing impacts. Although 

NEPA does not require it, we chose an approach in Chapter 4.1.2 and 

defined significance criteria. Significance criteria are judgmental in 

nature and are defined by these qualitative descriptors. Each time we 

have applied them we have explained how we reached each judgment. 

We have assessed environmental impacts within a context of where they 

occur and by their intensity and duration. Traceability back to, or 

reliance on peer reviewed papers for substantiation in all circumstances 

simply is not possible. The citations for sources we have relied upon are 

reported in Chapter 6.0 of the Programmatic EIS. Where we have data 

or information from refereed journals we use it. Whatever we have 

relied upon we believe it can be defended. NEPA only requires that the 

data or information be publicly available, which could include data or 

information in refereed journals, or it could include information in 

government reports or reported in official communications of various

types.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.02 

Concerned about the arbitrary use of impact conventions when 

evaluating an action for its “Level A” or “Level B” threshold. 

The current standard is used by National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA). It is a blunt metric and could use some refinement, 

but it is the standard. Using it in parallel selectively substituting 

it with the “Southall Criteria1” is confusing and inconsistent, 

particularly since the “Southall Criteria” is only an initial 

scientific recommendation and has not yet gone through an EIS 

review as would be required under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) to be used as a guiding document for this 

DEIS. The motivation behind using one or the other is 

particularly confusing when there is such a disparity between 

the results. We suggest that historic NMFS standard be 

consistently used throughout the DEIS until that time when the 

Southall Criteria is complete and has gone through public 

review as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). In summary, NMFS –MMPA Level A and level B 

criteria should be used exclusively throughout the DEIS. The 

“Southall Criteria” should not be used until it is complete and 

has gone through NEPA review.

The Southall criteria are used for impact analysis in the EIS, along with 

the current NMFS criteria for Level A and B harassment. NMFS is 

developing new acoustic criteria and agreed to the inclusion of the 

Southall criteria for comparative purposes. If in the future NMFS 

authorizes incidental takes for individual surveys under the proposed 

action, they would use the Level A and B harassment criteria in effect at 

that time. BOEM is conducting an impact analysis, not applying for 

incidental takes based on the Southall criteria. There is no requirement 

under NEPA for impact criteria to undergo “an EIS review” to be used in 

an impact analysis. The Southall criteria were developed by a group of 

experts in acoustics and marine mammal behavior and physiology and 

were released in a peer reviewed publication that has been widely cited 

in the scientific literature. As noted in the Southall et al. (2007) paper, 

the historic NMFS criteria were initially developed before there were 

studies of temporary threshold shift or other auditory impacts in marine 

mammals. Appendix H includes updated information on studies 

conducted since the Southall et al. (2007) paper was released. Under 

NEPA, we are obligated to use the best available science, and we would 

be remiss to exclude the Southall criteria from consideration on that 

basis. The Programmatic EIS has been revised to indicate that the 

Southall et al. (2007) criteria are for “injury” (the terminology used in 

the Southall paper) rather than labeling them as “Level A harassment.” 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-185

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Whether the Southall “injury” criteria should be considered to represent 

Level A harassment is a regulatory decision that is currently being 

evaluated by NMFS as part of their acoustic criteria development and is 

beyond the scope of the Programmatic EIS.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.03 

Another conceit appears occasionally throughout the DEIS that 

“marine mammals within the AOI are familiar with vessel 

noises, so the effects of vessel noises are expected to be 

negligible to minor.” In fact it has recently been determined 

that chronic shipping noise induces stress in bowhead whales,5

so the assumption that animals habituate to vessel noise is 

patently false and should to be removed from both the marine 

mammal as well as the fisheries sections of the DEIS until 

proven to be true. All references to “habituation” should be 

removed from the DEIS, especially where it is inferred as a 

mitigation strategy because it is not supported by the literature.

BOEM does not agree that habituation as a concept needs to be removed 

from the Programmatic EIS. However, BOEM agrees that it is not a 

mitigation strategy and we have reviewed the impact discussions for 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and fishes to ensure that a conclusion is not 

based on an unproven presumption of habituation.

It is presumed that mammals within the AOI, particularly within areas 

such as shipping lanes and nearshore waters adjacent to metropolitan 

areas, such as ports, are familiar with underwater noise produced by 

diverse vessels. This statement does not imply mitigation but rather 

baseline conditions. The small incremental increase in the number of 

survey and support vessels associated with proposed activities operating 

within the AOI are not anticipated to significantly impact these 

resources.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.04 

There are serious shortcoming in the entire DEIS; While there 

are sections throughout the document addressing “Cumulative” 

impacts of the activities, these are considered as “incremental” 

impacts rather than synergistic impacts.

Chapter 3.6 and Chapter 4.1.3 have been revised to further define the 

scope of the cumulative impacts analysis, specifically to note that 

synergistic impacts have been considered in the cumulative impacts 

analysis. The cumulative impact analyses presented in Chapter 4.1.3

also originally noted "Cumulative impacts, or the accumulation of 

effects, can result from one or more processes. These processes, as 

outlined by NRC (2003), include (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”). Synergistic 

impacts were also addressed for each resource during cumulative impact 

analysis.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.05 

Subjecting entire ecosystems to a chronic assault such as noise, 

physical disruption, or chemical pollution will at some point 

cause an irrecoverable instability that will crash the system. In 

this context the DEIS fails to address anything but the 

immediate or concurrent impacts of an assault, assuming that 

once the assault has “moved on” or ceased that it no longer has 

BOEM and NMFS agree that there are uncertainties regarding the effects 

of noise on an ecosystem. BOEM and NMFS use the best available 

information, in addition to sponsoring research and workshops to address 

these data gaps, in order to fulfill their missions as regulatory agencies. 

Chapter 3.6 and Chapter 4.1.3 have been revised to further define the 

scope of the cumulative impacts analysis, specifically to note that 
L-186 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

a measurable impact. While our ability to account for 

synergistic impacts is rudimentary at best, precaution and 

empirical evidence would dictate that we factor in synergistic 

impacts even while we don’t entirely understand them.

synergistic impacts have been considered in the cumulative impacts 

analysis for each resource. In addition, see comment response 

NGO-E-4:0.04. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.06 

Another assumption that is also found in the DEIS is the 

assumption that “ramp-up” or “soft start” of seismic surveys 

are effective mitigation strategies. In fact Jochens et. al. (2008) 

indicates that there was no avoidance behavior with ramp up in 

sperm whales. This could be due to a number of factors; one 

possibility being that animals familiar with the seismic survey 

pulses did not find suitable respite in swimming away from the 

source so they just waited it out. Thus the assumption that 

“ramping up” and “soft starts” constitute an effective 

mitigation should be withdrawn from the DEIS until proven 

otherwise. All references to “Ramp-up” and “Soft Start” being 

used as a mitigation strategy should be either pulled from the 

DEIS, or included with the caveat that there is no evidence that 

these techniques are effective (until proven otherwise).

Ramp-up (or soft start) is a standard, widely used part of the mitigation 

protocol for seismic surveys in the U.S. and internationally. It is required 

in BOEM and BSEE’s Gulf of Mexico seismic survey protocol NTL 

2012-JOINT-G02 (“Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation 

Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”) (USDOI, BOEM and 

BSEE, 2012a), the International Association of Geophysical Contractors 

guidelines, and country-specific guidelines in Australia, Brazil, Canada, 

New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Ramp up is routinely specified as 

a mitigation requirement in NMFS IHAs and LOAs for seismic surveys. 

Appendix C of the Programmatic EIS clearly notes that ramp up is used 

mainly as a “common sense” procedure with little information on its 

effectiveness. BOEM has added a discussion of Adaptive Management to 

the Programmatic EIS (see Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7); 

through the Adaptive Management process, mitigation requirements could 

be revised if new information indicates that they are infeasible or could be 

made more effective.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.07 

The comment on page xviii in the summary, and in section 

2.1.3.5, and 4.2.5.1.4 that “there is no permanent damage in 

fish ears” is incorrect and based on outdated literature.12 The 

citation from Smith et. al. (2006)13 is work done on a goldfish, 

a freshwater air-breathing fish that resides in turbid 

environments. The goldfish has been categorized as a “hearing 

specialist” due to adaptations that are specific to their 

environment which have no analogies in open ocean fish. So 

the comment about “fish not suffering lasting hearing damage” 

and the associated assumptions should be removed from the 

DEIS. All references to fish not being subject to permanent 

hearing damage should be removed from the DEIS along with 

the consequent assumptions associated with the comment 

because it is not supported by the literature.

We do not agree with the suggestion to remove all statements about 

lasting hearing damage and the associated assumptions. The basis for 

this conclusion is not limited to the Smith et al. (2006) paper cited in the 

comment. Text has been modified in Chapters 2.1.3.5 and 4.2.5.1.4 to 

address this comment. Also see Appendix J, Section 5.2. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.08 

There is also the phrase “No mortality or injury is expected in 

any case because there has been no observation of direct 

physical injury or death to fishes from airguns” found in the 

fisheries impacts sections of the DEIS. This phrase is only 

partially correct, as there is evidence of physical injury of 

fishes from airguns in McCauley et. al. 2003. And while there 

may be no direct evidence of fish mortality from airguns, if fish 

Chapter 4.2.5.1.4 has been revised to address this comment. Although 

McCauley et al. (2003) did observe impact to fish hearing from seismic 

noise, there are a number of caveats associated with those findings 

including that the fish were caged and were unable to swim away from 

the sound source and video monitoring indicated that the fish would have 

fled the sound source if possible. Additional information about the issue 

of “injury” to fishes is presented in Appendix J.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-187

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

sensory systems are compromised by seismic surveys it may 

lead to intermediate or long term impacts that are not evident 

immediately after a survey. In this case an absence of evidence 

does not indicate an absence of harm.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.09 

The DEIS treats invertebrates very lightly _ almost 

dismissively. In section 2.1.3.1 the comment is made that 

“...limited available data assessing physiological effects or 

biochemical responses of marine invertebrates to underwater 

noise indicate that serious pathological and physiological 

effects are unlikely.” This is clearly not the case according to 

Andre et.al (2006)15 wherein giant squid mortality was directly 

correlated to seismic airgun surveys. This is clearly a case 

where the writers of the DEIS were wrong when they assumed 

that in a paucity of evidence that the impacts would be 

“negligible.” These findings, along with the prior work of 

Angel Guerra et.al (2004)16 should be incorporated into the 

DEIS section 2.1.3.1 and 4.2.1.2.2, and the assumptions revised 

to reflect the papers. Also in section 4.2.1.2.2 is after citing 

Payne (2007)17 the comment is made that “this particular 

species of lobster was not present in the AOI,” thus dismissed. 

While this species of lobster is not present in the AOI, it stands 

to reason that other arthropods may suffer the same damage 

under similar exposures – an “assumption” on our part that 

holds much more water than the blanket use of goldfish hearing 

as a proxy for all marine teleost fishes found in the DEIS. Also 

found in section 4.2.1.2.2 and consistent with worrying 

convention in the DEIS to conflate an absence of data with an 

absence of harm is the comment that “The BOEM has 

determined that 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.” This 

phrase and the assumptions that it substantiates should be 

pulled from the DEIS as it is only an opinion and not 

substantiated by the literature. References to acoustical 

impacts on marine invertebrates – particularly squid, should be 

updated and included in the EIS to reflect current state of 

understanding.31,32,33,34,35

Chapter 4.2.1.2.2 has been revised to address this comment. Also, 

Appendix J discusses the limited available information on sound use by 

aquatic invertebrates and summarizes potential impacts. BOEM has also 

incorporated into the Programmatic EIS the report, Effects of Noise on 

Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic Oceans 

from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities, from the BOEMsponsored workshop in March 2012 (Normandeau Associates, Inc.,

2012). This report addressed effects of sound on invertebrates.

Michael Stocker, 

NGOE-4 0.10 Sound propagation and noise attenuation in the ocean is a 

complex topic. Almost any marine setting will exhibit 

The acoustic modeling in Appendix D included consideration of 

parameters such as seasonal sound speed profiles, water depth, and 
L-188 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

propagation characteristics that defy our ability to model. This 

may obviate a need for ongoing monitoring during any 

potentially noisy operation as a matter of course. In lieu of 

comprehensive regional and temporal sound propagation 

models to feed with data we must rely on some stock, simple 

assumptions. Some simple assumptions are used in the DEIS, 

but given the scope of the proposed actions both in spatial and 

temporal terms, the simple models used in the DEIS fail to 

capture the extents of the impacts. One assumption is that 

sound will propagate in a hemispherical pattern away from the 

source until the acoustical energy encounters a boundary. The 

‘broad brush’ attenuation formula for this is: 20log10 (r1/r2) 

where r1 is the reference distance (usually 1 meter) and r2 is 

the subject distance for evaluation. Once the energy hits the 

seafloor the energy tends to spread in a cylindrical pattern 

wherein the attenuation formula is 10log10 (r1/r2). Because 

the first boundary encountered is the seafloor, the sound levels 

at a distance within the depth of the ocean directly beneath the 

source will be more in line with attenuation at 20 dB log10 of r. 

Far field will be more in line with 10log10 r. But there is some 

continuum between these attenuation conditions, so depending 

on the distance between the receiver and the source the 

attenuation factor may be closer to 17 in the “nearish field” and 

13 in the far field. Additionally, while it is not mentioned 

anywhere in the DEIS there is a secondary transmission path in 

the “mixed layer” above the marine thermocline that behaves as 

a “surface duct.” While the propagation in this transmission 

path is dependent on the wavelength of the source, the angle of 

incidence, the depth of the mixed layer, and the surface 

conditions, the attenuation characteristics are more in 

consistent with the cylindrical model of 10log10 r. (see Urick 

1983)18 Transmission in the surface duct, along with the farfield cylindrical propagation highlights concerns in the 

“nearish” field pertaining to both required “exclusion zones” 

and the efficacy of marine mammal observers (MMO). It is 

already impractical to expect MMOs to effectively spot marine 

mammals at distances over 1000 meters in calm seas during the 

day. In these conditions a large airgun array with a source level 

of 229 dB re:1μPa @ 1m (FN.19) would require 10 km to 

attenuate to 180dB re:1μPa exposure level. 229 dB – 180 dB = 

41 dB _ 10log10 (1/13000) = -41dB MMO effectiveness over 

bottom sediment type to characterize the Area of Interest. In developing 

the propagation model presence and strength of a surface duct, presence 

of a convergence zone, and bottom bounce pathways were all 

considered. The modeling used to calculate effect ranges and incidental 

takes accounts for the reverberation and multipath effects cited in the 

comment. Please see Appendix D and Appendix E for a detailed 

discussion. Also, the 120-dB Level B harassment criterion is not used 

by NMFS for pulsed sources (such as airguns) in the current regulatory 

framework. NMFS currently uses 160 dB as the Level B harassment 

criterion for pulsed sources. For additional information on exclusion 

zones, please refer to the Final BO (Appendix A). Individual operators 

are required to obtain MMPA authorizations before any activities can be 

authorized. The MMPA authorizations will further define exclusion 

zones and may require additional mitigations.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-189

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

these ranges is not just impractical, it is improbable. So it is 

clear that in most situations a large capacity survey cannot 

avoid subjecting any marine mammal within 10 km to Level A 

harassment exposures from either the surface ducting or the 

cylindrical propagation of acoustical energy. If you add the 

“second hit” from the reflected sound off of the sea bottom, and 

the direct noise from the hemispherical propagation, the 

receiver is hit with at least three distinct wave fronts from 

multi-path sources (all three transmission paths have differing 

geometrical lengths as well as different transmission speeds 

due to temperature, pressure, and salinity factors). These three 

paths need to be integrated into the Sound Exposure Level 

(SEL) metric in the near-to-intermediate field. Additionally, 

due to the various transmission artifacts there may be situations 

in the far field in which the noise from the surveys are not 

heard as distinct pulses, but as a continuous noise due to 

reverberation and multipath effects.20,21,22,23 Because the noise 

would be continuous it should be mitigated under the 120dB 

“continuous noise” exposure threshold, particularly since the 

surveys will likely be occurring around the clock anyway. 

These considerations preclude the use of large capacity seismic 

surveys if Level A harassment conditions are to be avoided. 

Sound propagation models of seismic surveys should account 

for reverberation and multipath effects in the far field. If the far 

field noise artifacts are not distinguishable as discrete pulses 

then the noise criteria should fall under the 120dB mitigation 

threshold for continuous noise.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.11 

Regarding the mitigation strategy of separating the survey 

vessels by more than 40 km: While the model was not clearly 

articulated it appears that the DEIS used the hemispherical 

attenuation factor of 20log10 r to derive the 40 km “mitigation” 

strategy. A more accurate model for this setting is to determine 

what the exposure level would be at the midpoint (20 km) 

between the two survey vessels. We assume that a source level 

of 235 dB (convergence in the far field is not influenced by the 

directivity of the array). Using the hemispherical propagation 

model: 20log10 (1/20000) = 86dB → 235 dB – 86 dB = 149

dB re:1μPa Each survey would contribute 149 dB to the 

system, which at the mid-point between them would yield 152

dB (adding two equal sound levels increases the overall level 

by 3 dB). But as we know, far field propagation is not 

Chapter 2.2.2.3 states that the 40-km (26-nmi; 25-mi)separation 

distance was based on an operational limit to eliminate overlapping 

reflections received from multiple source arrays established. The 

separation distance under Alternative B was created by rounding up this 

typical “operational” separation distance to 20 km (10.8 nmi; 12.4 mi), 

then doubling it. We believe it to be a reasonable and prudent protective 

measure; however, industry has, in certain areas such as the North Sea, 

developed timeshare guidelines to address interference problems. 

BOEM may not apply this specific measure programmatically. Instead, 

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. This evaluation will also consider any potential 

aggregate effects from existing permitted surveys (if any). The 

calculation of attenuation of the acoustic wave energy due to geometrical 
L-190 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

hemispherical, rather it is more cylindrical. Using exclusively 

the cylindrical model: 10log10 (1/20000) = 43 dB → 235 dB –

43 dB = 192 dB re:1μPa Each survey would contribute 192dB 

to the system, which at the mid-point between them would 

combine to add +3 dB yielding 195 dB – well above the 180

dB exclusion zone. (These levels would also be significantly 

beyond the visual reach of MMOs.)

speeding is a very simplified way to generate a rough estimate of the 

received levels at a distance from the source. The type of spreading loss 

to consider, spherical or cylindrical, depends on the configuration of the 

wave front. Near the source, up to the distance equal to the water depth, 

it would be a hemisphere, at larger distances it would be more like a 

cylinder. Therefore, it is a common practice to use a combination of 

spherical and cylindrical spreading models. Consider a 100 m deep 

environment. At 20-km distance from the source, one can expect the 

transmission loss due to spreading to be 20*log10(1/100) + 

10*log10(100/20000) = -40 + -23 = -63 dB loss, which leads to a 

received level of 235 dB – 63 dB = 172 dB + 3 dB = 175 dB. 

Unfortunately, using a simplified method, such as geometrical spreading, 

to calculate attenuation ignores a number of other factors that influence 

sound attenuation and that further decrease received levels. More 

accurate methods, such as the modeling done for this Programmatic EIS, 

are available. In our experience with many modeling studies and field 

measurements we never encountered such high levels, as suggested, at 

that distance. BOEM does not expect concurrent surveys in nearby areas 

to be a common occurrence.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.12 

In Section 2.1.3.1 (associated with chapter 4.2.1) evaluating the 

impacts of Alternative A, the statement is made regarding the 

lack of pressure gradient sensors in most marine invertebrates. 

It is known that many invertebrates have particle motion 

sensing systems. It is also mentioned that there is limited data 

on the vulnerability of these sensing systems to mechanical 

damage, and with this lack of data the writers of the DEIS 

assume therefore that marine invertebrates are “unlikely” to 

suffer physiological or pathological impacts from noise 

exposure. Unfortunately most of the data we do have on the 

impacts of large vector particle motion on marine invertebrates 

is limited to intertidal animals and coastal animals such as 

lobster, shrimp, clams, scallops, and octopus which would have 

evolved sensory systems adapted to coastal turbulence and 

crashing waves and thus not necessarily vulnerable to high 

amplitude, coherent-vector particle motion. But there has been 

a correlation to squid mortality and damage associated with 

seismic airgun surveys, so the blanket assumption that damage 

to marine invertebrates “is expected to be negligible” is an 

assumption that is not supported by the range of evidence 24

Text has been added to Chapters 2.1.3.1 and 4.2.4, to further discuss 

impact to invertebrates. However, based on the Significance Criteria 

definitions for benthic communities included in Chapter 4.2.1.2, the 

impact level is anticipated to range from negligible to negligible-minor. 

In addition, text addressing particle motion has been added to Section 7

of Appendix J. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

NGOE-4 0.13 In Section 2.1.3.2 (associated with chapter 4.2.2) regarding the 

impacts of boomer, chirp, and sub-bottom profilers, and multiAll of the active acoustic sources and all marine mammal groups were considered in the incidental take modeling in Appendix E and evaluated 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-191

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Conservation 

Research 

beam depth sounders, the statement is made that “some of 

[these] are expected to be beyond the functional hearing range 

of marine mammals or would be detectable only at very close 

range.” With the exception of the multi-beam depth sounders, 

these other sources would be detectable by odontocetes and 

should be evaluated for impacts. Boomers, chirp, and subbottom profilers, should be more closely scrutinized in terms of 

their respective impacts on odontocetes.

in the impact analysis. Level A and Level B take numbers were 

calculated for representative sound sources including electromechanical 

sources such as boomers, chirp, and sub-bottom profilers and multi-beam 

depth sounders. Multi beam depth sounders are not the only equipment 

that may operate at frequencies beyond the functional hearing range of 

marine mammals; side scan sonars operating at 400 kHz and chirp 

subbottom profilers operating at 200 kHz would also be above the 

hearing range of all marine mammal groups (see Appendix D for 

operating frequencies used in the analysis).

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.14 

Also in Section 2.1.3.2 the Level B impacts of vessel noise is 

discounted by the fact that Level B impacts from seismic 

surveys and other active noise sources have been accounted for. 

While numerically the exposure levels may have been 

accommodated in the Level B exposure criteria, this is an oversimplification of the response of animals to increasingly 

complex noises. It is likely that a fully operating seismic 

survey with system calibration signals, sea-floor profilers, and 

various other noises added to the sum of the noises of the 

vessel would have a more pronounced behavioral impact than 

the simple exposure impact of each of the sounds separately. It 

would stand to reason that a complex and varying sound field 

would have greater impacts than the impacts of just sound type 

at a specific amplitude – even if each one of them was at or 

below the Level B harassment threshold. Response to sound 

quality rather than level alone is substantiated in Frankel and 

Clark (1998).25 (This argument appears in section 4.2.2.2 

p.4-58 under Vessel Noise Evaluation as well.) A more 

accurate (but equally simplistic) model would treat each noise 

source that exceeded the Level B harassment threshold as a 

separate Level B harassment.

The commenter makes a valid point that complex noises or different 

noises operating simultaneously may have a different impact on the 

animal than single source noises. Currently, the scientific community 

does not understand how these complex noises or different noise sources 

operating simultaneously impact animal behavior responses. BOEM and 

NMFS believe that they have utilized the best model and approach to 

analyze the effects of the various active sound sources on the 

environment. Sound quality is discussed in this EIS, as the comment 

noted, in Chapter 4.2.2.2. The impact assessments and tools used for 

those assessments included in the Programmatic EIS are based on 

NOAA’s current acoustic guidelines. When NOAA revises their 

regulatory criteria, we will adapt to meet new regulatory requirements. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.15 

While it is not entirely within the range of our acoustical 

impacts evaluation, under the same section 2.1.3.2 regarding 

accidental oil spills that “marine mammals would be expected 

to avoid areas of heavy fuel sheen” and thus the impacts would 

be “negligible to minor.” Avoidance behavior of oil-sheen 

waters has not been confirmed and would not necessarily be an 

evolutionary adaptation. The “avoidance behavior” assumption 

should be pulled from the DEIS along with the assumptions 

that the comment substantiates.

This assumption has been deleted from the Programmatic EIS. Chapter 

4.2.2.3 further discusses potential effects of accidental oil spills on 

marine mammals. BOEM and NMFS agree that there is little data 

regarding the effects of oil spills on marine mammals and their behavior 

in the case of an oil spill. However, BOEM and NOAA cite the best 

available information.
L-192 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.16 

In Section 4.2.2.2.2 “Evaluation” (p.4-52) the comment is made 

referencing Au and Hastings (2008) that mammalian ears 

“behaves like an integrator with an integrator time constant,” 

which in the paper is determined to be 100 ms, and through this 

mechanism a 10ms pulse integrated over 100ms represents a 

10dB decrease in exposure (presumably impacts). While this 

does mathematically work into the “Sound Exposure level” 

metric30 this metric is for physiological impacts only, there is 

no evidence of decreased stress from repetitive exposures of 

"short duration shocks" over longer pulses.

Integration time is a physiological component that affects the amount of 

sound energy the ear can process over a given time interval. Because the 

signal is less than the integration time, the perceived sound level is an 

average value of the sound pressure received during the integration time. 

Because this is a physiological description of how the ear processes 

received acoustic energy, even for behavioral effects and masking, the 

short duration of the signal will affect the perceived sound level by the 

animal. The calculation is not intended to address repetitive exposures, 

but rather to account for how very brief signals will be perceived by an 

animal.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.17 

In the same section, p.4-53 “Level A Incidental Take 

Estimates” are referenced to Tables 4-9 and 4-10. These tables 

variously refer to either the “Southall criteria” or the “180dB 

criteria.” The reason for choosing one over the other standard 

is not clear here, except that the “Southall Criteria” numbers 

are all significantly smaller. As mention before, the Southall 

Criteria should not be used until complete and approved 

through NEPA review.

The text following the citation of Tables 4-9 and 4-10 has been revised 

to indicate that the Southall criteria are presented “for comparison” after 

the estimates using the current NMFS criteria. See the response to 

comment NGO-E-4:0.02 for an explanation of why the Southall criteria 

are included.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.18 

In this same paragraph regarding the use of “other equipment, 

including sub-bottom profilers, side-scan sonars, and depth 

sounders” concurrently with airguns would have no additional 

impacts because “airguns represent the highest energy source” 

this “it is reasonable to assume that there would be no 

additional take from the electromechanical sources operating 

concurrently.” As indicated above it is a faulty assumption 

based on noise level exposure alone - we can assume that like 

humans, other animals respond negatively to the complexity of 

any agonistic signal. Additionally, the noises of the other 

electromechanical systems are operating across different 

frequency bands which would not necessarily be masked by the 

low frequency noise of airguns. Concurrent noise sources are 

not a set of individual exposures, rather they all contribute to an 

entire soundscape. These “holo-phonic” impacts will be far 

greater than individual sound sources or even the sum of 

concurrent sound sources. In this context a survey operation 

with two or more boats and an array of profilers and multibeam sonars should be evaluated across the entire noise 

spectrum, and over the entire time of the operation. In this 

context many of these surveys would qualify as “continuous 

noise sources, and thus subject to the 120dB mitigation criteria. 

Complex noise exposures should be integrated as a complete 

Chapter 4.2.2.2.2 has been revised to indicate the possibility that sounds 

emitted by the other electromechanical systems may operate across 

different frequency bands that would not necessarily be masked by the 

low frequency band of airguns. The complexity of the integrated sound 

field or “soundscape” referred to in this comment is not feasible or 

appropriate to model in a programmatic document since there are so 

many different possibilities of equipment combinations to be used for 

various surveys. If appropriate and depending on the acoustic criteria in 

effect at the time, the sound field from multiple sources could be 

modeled for individual surveys and use the specific sound sources 

proposed for the individual survey. The use of the 120-dB continuous 

noise criterion for Level B harassment is not appropriate for seismic 

surveys based on the current regulatory framework. NMFS currently 

uses 160 dB as the Level B harassment criterion for pulsed sources.

NMFS is in the process of developing new acoustic criteria for Level A 

and Level B harassment. BOEM will apply these new criteria once they 

are finalized. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-193

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

sound field over time rather than taken as a set of discrete noise 

sources. As such most seismic surveys would be considered 

“continuous noise sources” in the far field and should be 

subject to the120 dB Continuous Noise mitigation criteria.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.19 

In the “Conclusion” section the airgun evaluation it is stated 

from Tables 4-10 and 4-11 that “Incidental take calculations 

presented in for seismic airgun survey-related noise may be 

“conservative” because the exposure evaluations “do not 

consider functional hearing sensitivity ranges for the various 

species and so assume that all of the species are equally 

sensitive to received sound frequencies and levels.” While it is 

true that various animals have adapted to their own acoustical 

niches, we must assume that these animals reside in a complete 

bio-acoustic habitat with other animals and that the receivers 

are not just individual subjects in a test environment. It would 

actually be more realistic to state that the auditory thresholds of 

odontocetes have been determined by way of captive animals 

that have been habituated (trained) to respond to operant 

conditioning and to cooperate with Audio Evoked Potential 

auditory testing. These individual animals only approximate 

the hearing responses of wild animals which often respond as a 

group to sound stimulus and are adapted to be more responsive 

to environmental sounds.

We believe the referenced sentence in the Conclusions section is 

reasonable. Considering only the 180 dB and 160 dB criteria, marine 

mammals could be counted as incidental takes even if the sounds they 

are exposed to are not within their hearing range. However, the 

Programmatic EIS recognizes that animals could be indirectly and more 

subtly affected as indicated in the comment. Within Chapter 4.2.2.2.1, 

Significance Criteria, of the Programmatic EIS, is a subsection titled 

Stress, Disturbance, and Behavioral Responses that presents a summary 

of studies relevant to marine mammal hearing capabilities. While the 

statement suggested in the comment is pertinent to some studies, those 

represent only a small portion of the information available. In addition, 

information pertaining to potential differences in hearing responses 

between captive and trained individuals, and wild animals that may be 

functioning acoustically as an integral part of a group has been added to 

Chapter 4.2.2.2. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.20 

The auditory responses of mysticetes have only been 

approximated by way of anatomical studies of dead animals 

and modeled from other vertebrate hearing and thus the 

auditory threshold models do not clearly represent the entire 

auditory response capabilities of living baleen whales residing 

in their natural habitat.

It is certainly correct to note that anatomical studies of the auditory 

structure of mysticetes are a valuable source of information in helping to 

understand their hearing capabilities. While direct measurements of the 

hearing in mysticetes have not been made, there are other sources of 

information available to help in estimating their hearing range. Please 

see Appendix H for a more complete discussion.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.21 

In the same section p.4-55 in is insinuated that animals with 

differing hearing priorities would have the chance to evade a 

slow-moving seismic operation to “avoid exposure to injurious 

sound levels.” What is not taken into consideration is the 

likelihood that most animals are in a particular area because 

they need to be there – for feeding, community coherence, 

family bonding, and breeding opportunities. Forced relocation 

due to exposure to agonistic stimulus undoubtedly increases 

stress, compromising metabolic, social, and immune system

functions.

Text has been added to Chapter 4.2.2.2 to address this comment.
L-194 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.22 

On p.4.56 referring to the “non-airgun HRG surveys” impacts 

conclusion section, the statement is made that “Level A take 

estimates that were calculated utilizing only the 180-dB 

criterion do not consider functional hearing sensitivity ranges 

for the various species and so assume that all of the species are 

equally sensitive to received sound frequencies and levels.” 

This statement appears to be a specious attempt to soft-pedal 

exposure impacts. The decision to use the “180 dB Criteria” as 

a mitigation threshold is an accepted, historical standard 

predicated on a known auditory thresholds found in captive 

animals. It was chosen as a mitigation threshold after long 

deliberation. Deconstruction of this standard for the purpose of 

this DEIS is inappropriate.

BOEM agrees that the 180-dB criterion is the accepted threshold and that 

is why it was used in developing the take estimates. The statement was 

made to illustrate the conservative nature of the Level A take estimates 

as some of the incidental takes are for equipment used during non-airgun 

HRG surveys that would be outside the hearing range of some species.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.23 

On p.4.56 referring to the “non-airgun HRG surveys” impacts 

conclusion section, the statement is made “assuming selective 

avoidance of the sound source by individual animals and 

operations within an open ocean environment” is implied as a 

mitigation strategy. This is not a mitigation strategy; rather it is 

why mitigation strategies are required. This statement should 

be pulled from the DEIS along with the assumptions it 

purportedly substantiates.

BOEM appreciates the comment and edits have been made to the

section. The pre- and during-operation visual monitoring surveys are 

designed as a mitigation measure. Active avoidance of the sound source 

by animals may occur but is not mitigation.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.24 

In the evaluation of noise impacts from “Vessels and 

Equipment Noise” p.4-57 that “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).” As these 

operations are continuous and not periodic or pulse noises the 

mitigation threshold would be 120dB re: 1 μPa, so the 

exclusion zone in the loudest instance would be: 180dB –

60dB = 120dB 20log10 (1/1000) = -60dB or 1000 m for 

spherical propagation, and 13log10 (1/40000) = -60dB or 40

km for far field propagation per our earlier argument.

BOEM agrees that much of the vessel and equipment noise is 

continuous. However, it is not a source regulated by NMFS and 

therefore exclusion zones are not incorporated. We have revised the text 

in question in several locations to include consideration of these sources 

of continuous noise, and to provide estimates of radial distances and 

rationale for such calculations. In project-specific cases where vessel 

and equipment noise may be of concern, BOEM will consider the 

acoustic effects from these activities in further detail at the site/

permit-specific level. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.25 

On p.4-57 is the statement: “Drilling-related noises from semisubmersible platforms in deeper waters ranges in frequencies 

from 10 to 4,000 Hz, and therefore audible to all cetacean and 

pinneped species within the AOI. Drilling sound source levels 

from semisubmersible platforms are estimated at 154 dB re 1 

BOEM appreciates the logic provided regarding drilling, semisubmersibles, and thrusters. However, the purpose of this EIS is not to 

analyze for exploratory drilling or drilling-related noise. The amount of 

drilling activity expected as part of the scenario in Chapter 3.0 is very 

modest – e.g., in the case of COST wells, between 0 and 3 deployments 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-195

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

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.” This statement needs to be clarified: 

Semi-submersible platforms are stabilized by way of thrusters, 

which have not been characterized in the literature, nonetheless 

with a source level of 191dB and due to the continuous 

characteristic of the noise will need to be mitigated at the 

120dB exclusion zone, not just “within a radius of audibility.” 

Given: 191dB – 69dB = 120dB 20log10 (1/2850) = -69dB or 

2.85 km for spherical propagation, and 13log10 (1/200000) = -

69dB or 200 km for far field propagation per our earlier 

argument. Of course this is a simple model and does not 

account for frequency-dependent sound absorption over 

distance, but is also does not account for surface channel 

propagation or effects of multipath propagation over distance. 

The appropriate use of the 120dB mitigation threshold would 

preclude the use of semi-submersible platforms in the Area of 

Interest for exploratory drilling, and in the future for extraction 

and production. Semi-submersible drilling platforms and 

thruster stabilized drilling ships need to be evaluated for noise 

contribution while in operation and due to the continuous noise 

characteristic of their thrusters, and need to be mitigated at the 

120dB re 1 μPa exclusion criteria.

as shown in Table 3-9. A detailed acoustic analysis is not really 

necessary at the programmatic level based on the level of activity 

anticipated. In those project-specific cases where drilling operations are 

proposed and where the sound source and propagation may be of 

concern, BOEM will consider the acoustic effects from these activities in 

site/permit-specific evaluations of individual survey applications. Text 

has been added to the section to note noise attenuation conditions, 

approximate radial distance, and the fact that BOEM will evaluate 

project-specific noise sources, as necessary.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.26 

NMFS –MMPA Level A and level B criteria should be used 

exclusively throughout the DEIS. The “Southall Criteria” 

should not be used until it is complete and has gone through 

NEPA review.

Please see the response to comment NGO-E-4:0.02. Briefly, there is no 

requirement under NEPA for impact criteria to undergo “a NEPA 

review” to be used in an impact analysis. BOEM is conducting an 

impact analysis, not applying for incidental takes based on the Southall 

criteria. The Programmatic EIS has been revised to indicate that the 

Southall et al. (2007) criteria are for “injury” (the terminology used in 

the Southall paper) rather than labeling them as “Level A harassment.” 

Whether the Southall “injury” criteria should be considered to represent 

Level A harassment is a regulatory decision that is currently being 

evaluated by NMFS as part of their acoustic criteria development and is 

beyond the scope of the Programmatic EIS.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.27 

Sound propagation models should include provisions for 

surface duct transmission paths in seismic surveys, and 

thruster-stabilized platform and drillship operations.

The presence, or absence, of a surface duct is an important aspect of the 

propagation component in acoustic modeling, and has been addressed in 

Section 5.1.1 of Appendix E. Platform and drillship operations are not 

included in the modeling as they are beyond the scope of this EIS.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

NGOE-4 0.28 Exposure to the same seismic signal that arrives at the receiver 

as multiple signals due to time domain differences in direct, 

Please see Appendix D and Appendix E which address all of these 

factors in their discussion of sound propagation.
L-196 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Conservation 

Research 

reflected, surface, and SOFAR ducting should be considered 

separately and figured into the overall Sound Exposure Level 

(SEL) metric.

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.29 

Expecting MMOs to effectively find marine mammals at night 

or in exclusion zones greater than 1000 meters is impractical 

even in calm sea states. Seismic survey operations should be 

limited to times and conditions in which MMOs can actually 

locate marine mammals within the prescribed exposuredependent “exclusion zone”.

BOEM agrees that PSOs cannot always effectively monitor an exclusion 

zone if visibility is limited, zone size is large, or sea states are high. The 

airgun survey protocol specifies that operators cannot initiate start-up 

procedures at night or when they cannot visually monitor the exclusion 

zone for marine mammals and sea turtles if the minimum source level 

drops below 160 dB re 1 μPa. In addition, Alternative B, which has been 

identified as the Agency’s Preferred Alternative, includes the required 

use of PAM at all times for airgun surveys. Additionally, if BOEM 

authorizes nighttime operations or if operations continue during periods 

of reduced visibility for non-airgun HRG surveys using sources 

operating at or below 200 kHz, effective monitoring technologies would 

be required which could include shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, night-vision equipment and/or PAM. These techniques help 

locate animals when visual conditions are not ideal. Prohibiting all 

survey operations at night is not feasible based on the operational 

requirements for broad scale surveys that may require months of 24 hour 

days to complete. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.30 

Under any airgun operation the noise propagation models used 

in the Final EIS should be verified in the field with acoustical 

monitoring both in the near and far fields until there is 

confidence that the EIS models represent the actual noise 

propagation in the field.

The Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol has been revised to require that 

operators establish an exclusion zone for each survey. The zone shall be 

calculated independently, be based on the configuration of the array and 

the ambient environment, but shall not have a radius of less than 500 m

(1,640 ft). In some cases, field verification or modeling may be 

conducted for non-airgun HRG acoustic sources. Please refer to 

Chapter 2.0 and Appendix C for the clarified mitigation requirements. 

Michael Stocker, 

Ocean 

Conservation 

Research 

NGOE-4 0.31 

It appears from the forgoing that neither Alternative A nor 

Alternative B will meet safe exposure criteria established under 

the Marine Mammal Protection act, and will cause significant 

habitat and wildlife damage. This should be avoided.

BOEM has cooperated with NMFS during the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS to ensure that resources under its jurisdiction would 

be adequately protected. BOEM has concluded its Section 7 

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act with NMFS and FWS to 

ensure that the proposed action would not jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat (see Appendix A). 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, seismic 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 

Incidental Take Statement. Additional mitigation measures can be 

applied by NMFS and/or FWS and are not limited to the mitigation 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-197

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

measures identified for the alternatives framed for this Programmatic 

EIS, or to how mitigation measures are defined in it. Based on the 

mitigation measures included in the proposed action as well as the 

coordination and consultation process outlined in Chapter 5.0, BOEM 

expects that significant habitat and wildlife damage as indicated in this 

comment would be avoided. 

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.01 

The Sierra Club, the oldest environmental organization in the 

United States, opposes any and all plans to undertake seismic 

testing along the Atlantic coastline, which would lead to future 

oil and gas exploration and extraction. 

Comment noted.

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.02 

Seismic testing would have a detrimental impact on a number 

of endangered and threatened species as well as any living 

marine creature, plants and animals.

BOEM has addressed potential impacts on threatened and endangered 

species as well as other marine life in the Programmatic EIS, which has 

also been reviewed by NMFS and FWS to ensure it adequately addresses 

impacts to marine resources under their jurisdiction, including threatened 

and endangered species. To comply with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, BOEM prepared a Biological Assessment that was 

submitted to NMFS and FWS to initiate consultation. NMFS has 

prepared a Biological Opinion that evaluates whether listed species are 

likely to be adversely affected and specifies reasonable and prudent 

measures to minimize impacts on listed species. NMFS will also review 

during the permitting process for site-specific activities. FWS concurred 

with BOEM’s determination in the Biological Assessment that the 

proposed action would have no effect or would not be likely to adversely 

affect all the federally listed species and potentially affected critical 

habitats under FWS jurisdiction (Appendix A). 

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.03 

The pressure disturbance of sound waves which travels through 

a medium by means of particle-to-particle interaction, will 

distorts sonar communications between whale species as well 

as dolphins.

Appendix H has been revised to provide a discussion of the potential for 

impacts to marine mammals from particle motion. Because particle 

motion attenuates more rapidly as it leaves the source than pressure does, 

after a relatively short distance (within one wavelength of the sound) it 

will have attenuated substantially and continue to decline at a rapid rate 

with distance from the source. Any effect as a result of exposure to 

particle motion (as well as its detection) is very likely to only occur very 

close to a source.
L-198 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.04 

Right Whales are considered surface feeders. The physical 

waves of seismic testing would destroy the whales' food source 

as well as their communication. The Right Whale migrates 

from Florida all the way north to Nova Scotia, Canada each 

year. Scientists who have dedicated most of their professional

careers to studying these mammals do not know their location 

at any given point and time. Those individuals involved in 

“seismic testing” hardly could know!

North Atlantic right whales feed on zooplankton, and seismic surveys are 

not expected to have significant impacts on these populations. Also, the 

main feeding grounds for the NARW are located offshore Canada and 

the northeastern U.S., which are outside the Area of Interest. Although 

the location of individual right whales may not be known, surveys have 

documented the population distribution, migratory corridors, and 

principal feeding, breeding, and nursery areas. That information 

provided the basis for NMFS to designate Critical Habitat and identify 

SMAs. The time-area closures included in Alternatives A and B prohibit 

seismic airgun surveys in these high use areas during the times when 

right whales are known to be present and will minimize the chance of 

exposing right whales to high sound levels from seismic surveys. In 

addition, each seismic airgun survey would use trained PSOs to look for 

right whales and other marine mammals.

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.05 

(In addition to North Atlantic Right Whales, Loggerhead 

turtles, and Atlantic Sturgeon) seismic testing and possibly 

later drilling and installing platforms for oil and gas extraction 

will impact the entire sea life along the path of the Gulf Stream. 

One has to understand the movement of the water current along 

the eastern coastline; such as the Corio lis force, the surface 

water, which moves at faster pace than the Thermohaline 

circulation, the “Global Conveyor Belt,” which comprises 

nearly 90 per cent of ocean waters and constitutes the deep 

water currents (at a depth of 400 m). Not only does any seismic 

testing interrupt the feeding sources for marine life, it would 

certainly also destroy Critical Habitat they need to survive. 

Seismic induced waves inflict heavy damage on the marine 

environment. It would bring loss of spawning areas and water 

pollution. One has to remember that the fishing industry makes 

their living on the seas and brings valuable foods to the nation's 

tables.

The proposed action evaluated in the Programmatic EIS includes G&G 

surveys, not oil and gas drilling or platform installation. If Congress 

directs BOEM to assess the impacts from opening the Area of Interest to 

oil and gas lease sales, the environmental issues raised by those activities 

would be addressed at that time in multiple future NEPA evaluations. 

Potential impacts on critical habitat are evaluated in the Biological 

Assessment and the Biological Opinion (Appendix A). Potential 

impacts on fisheries resources and Essential Fish Habitat are evaluated in 

Chapter 4.2.5 and potential impacts on Commercial and Recreational 

Fishing are evaluated in Chapters 4.2.7 and 4.2.8, respectively.

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.06 

Only in the late 1960s was the dumping by the US military of 

thousands of canisters of chemical weapons into the waters of 

the East Coast halted. Records show that the military disposed 

of WMDs for decades, from 1944 to 1970. Off the coast of 

New Jersey the military dumped containers of mustard gas and 

nerve gas, off Virginia and South Carolina canisters of arsenic 

trichloride, white phosphorus, mustard gas and lewisite. When 

in 1987 hundred of dolphins washed ashore in Virginia and 

New Jersey beaches with burns similar to mustard gas 

exposure, a marine mammal specialist believed chemical 

We agree that OCS activities must avoid the potential to disrupt 

ordinance or WMD sites, the locations for which may be poorly 

documented. These hazardous wastes may be introduced to the 

biosphere by natural container deterioration that cannot be avoided, but 

that is likely to result in slow and gradual leakage. The means by which 

a sudden and high concentration of toxins may be released would be as 

the result of direct contact or disturbance of the bottom. The proposed 

activities in this Programmatic EIS are G&G surveys and some limited 

drilling of stratigraphic wells. Bottom disturbances that are proposed in 

a permit application would require shallow hazard bottom surveys to 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-199

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

weapons dumped in the ocean by the US Army killed these 

animals. It is a real possibility that any seismic activity will 

speed up the breakdown of those aged containers and cause 

leakage. Not only will any dispersal of such toxic chemical 

cause great harm to marine life, it may also cause major injury, 

such as severe spastic paralysis and even death if the 

respiratory muscles become paralyzed in those human workers. 

To take it one step further: will the American consumer put 

seafood on their table contaminated with arsenic and other 

toxic substances?

identify potentially sensitive biologic communities or cultural resources 

such as shipwrecks as a condition for permit approval. These surveys 

are fully expected to be able to identify suspect bottom types having a 

topographic or magnetic signature suggestive of materials disposed on 

the sea bottom. Such areas may be investigated by remote vehicles or 

avoided altogether. We do not find credible a claim that seismic 

impulses have the ability to damage the integrity of ordinance or WMD 

that has been disposed on the bottom. 

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.07 

The beaches of New Jersey are their treasure and need to be 

protected. In addition to loss of tourism in case of a disastrous 

accident, property values along the eastern seaboard, and 

particularly to New Jersey, would be astronomical.

The proposed action does not include activities offshore New Jersey. 

The Programmatic EIS has evaluated the potential impacts from an 

accidental event, specifically accidental fuel spills as discussed in 

Chapter 3.5.2.1. The Programmatic EIS notes that, based on USCG spill 

statistics, the likelihood of a spill would be remote and the likely spill 

volume would be small. The analysis in Chapter 4.2.9.3 concludes that 

the potential impacts on recreational resources would be negligible to 

negligible-minor depending on spill location and the meteorological and 

oceanographic conditions at the time. In any case, it is unlikely that an 

accidental spill from activities within the Area of Interest would affect 

beaches in New Jersey.

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.08 

Even if there were to be no seismic testing at the New Jersey 

coast at the present time, this state and its tourism trade and 

fishing industry would be impacted by any unforeseen future 

oil spill, if later drilling was approved along the coastline of 

Virginia and the Carolinas.

The Programmatic EIS evaluates potential impacts of G&G surveys. 

Impacts of future activities such as oil and gas exploration and 

production would require multiple future NEPA evaluations.

Margit MeissnerJackson, Sierra 

Club, Ocean 

County Group

NGOL-4 0.09 

With the ever-increasing evidence of sea level rise along the 

nation's shorelines one wonders why there is still the push for 

more oil and gas exploration. There needs to be exploration of 

alternative energy sources. For your office to claim that you 

are involved in developing “Renewable Energy Programs”

sounds irresponsible. Are you aware that a possible renewable 

power source is available without damage to marine life and 

industry? The Gulf Stream transports ca. 1.4 petawatts of heat 

which is the equivalent of 100 times the world energy demand.

The Programmatic EIS has been written to evaluate the impacts of G&G 

surveys falling under three programs: oil and gas, renewable energy, and 

marine minerals. BOEM’s Renewable Energy program 

(http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/index.aspx) includes 

studies of the potential development of hydrokinetic energy from waves 

and ocean currents (such as the Gulf Stream). Any surveys proposed to 

harness the energy of the Gulf Stream would be evaluated on a sitespecific basis in future NEPA documents.

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.01 

In particular, we are concerned that the draft PEIS 

underestimates the risks that seismic activities, especially deep 

penetration seismic air gun surveys, pose for the critically 

endangered north Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). 

Section 101 of the MMPA provides a mechanism for allowing 

the incidental (not intentional) taking of “small numbers” so 

BOEM has conducted ESA consultation with NMFS to ensure that the 

proposed action would not jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered species (including the NARW) or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. The Biological Opinion is presented in 

Appendix A and includes NMFS’ reasonable and prudent measures, 

terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations. Further 
L-200 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

long as the taking has no more than a “negligible impact” on 

such species. “Incidental take” authorizations require that 

regulations be promulgated outlining the (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. The MMPA does allow takes for 

those marine mammal species protected as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) so long 

as the taking remains small in number and has a negligible 

impact on a listed species. The Biological Assessment (BA) 

prepared by BOEM, with the input from NMFS, has concluded 

that proposed seismic activities are likely to adversely affect all 

of the endangered whales found in the proposed activity area, 

including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. 

The BA concludes that mitigation measures required by BOEM 

will “be effective in avoiding Level A harassment of North 

Atlantic right whales by active acoustic sound sources to the 

maximum extent practicable.” However, there is a significant 

difference between avoiding all adverse effects altogether and 

avoiding adverse effects to the maximum extent practicable. 

The former guarantees that harm will not come to any 

individual right whale, the latter only reduces the risk to 

individual right whales. Thus, while BOEM may not expect 

that Level A take, i.e. injury or mortality, will occur, BOEM 

cannot guarantee that its actions will not jeopardize the North 

Atlantic right whale. Therefore, SCB disagrees that BOEM has 

done everything possible to mitigate the impacts of these 

proposed seismic activities. The critically endangered North 

Atlantic right whale is particularly vulnerable to masking 

effects from seismic air gun surveys given the acoustic and 

behavioral characteristics of its calls. The exposure levels 

implicated in all of these studies above are lower than the 

threshold used to evaluate air gun behavioral impacts in the 

DPEIS. Repeated insult from seismic air gun surveys would 

occur on top of already high levels of background noise. For 

individual right whales, and cumulatively for the species, these 

activities represent jeopardy for the species continued 

existence.

information about the coordination between MMPA authorization and 

ESA requirements is provided in Chapter 1.6.7. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-201

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.02 

SCB notes that BOEM has the authority to impose whatever 

mitigation measures it deems necessary to fully protect the 

right whale. For example, BOEM could prohibit all seismic 

activities in the entire South Atlantic planning area when right 

whales are on their calving and nursing grounds each winter. 

Such a prohibition would be much more effective than closing 

only 4% of the project area at certain times of year. 

Substantially more significant mitigation measures are required 

because of the extraordinarily wide geographic scale that the 

impacts of seismic surveys can be felt at by the large baleen 

whales.

BOEM understands the need to protect the critically endangered NARW. 

BOEM has conducted Endangered Species Act consultation with NMFS 

to ensure that the proposed action would not jeopardize the continued 

existence of threatened or endangered species (including the NARW) or 

destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The Biological Opinion is 

presented in Appendix A and includes NMFS’ reasonable and prudent 

measures, terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations. 

BOEM will consider the Programmatic EIS and ESA findings, as well as 

other analyses, prior to making any decisions on permitting seismic 

activities in the Mid and South Atlantic Planning Areas. In addition, 

BOEM has the authority to impose mitigation measures it deems 

necessary for the protection of marine mammals that are reasonable and 

physically and economically feasible. The mitigation measures included 

in this Programmatic EIS have been developed in conjunction with 

regulatory agencies, such as NMFS, that have jurisdictional authority. 

Additionally, in the future each applicant will be required to obtain 

Incidental Take Authorizations under MMPA, as necessary, in 

conjunction with BOEM authorization.

Prohibiting all seismic surveys in the South Atlantic Planning Area (e.g., 

to a distance of 350 nmi [643 km; 403 mi] offshore) during the right 

whale calving and nursery season is not warranted based on the available 

information about the distribution of right whales. The time-area closure 

developed for Alternative B encompasses the area designated as right 

whale critical habitat, as well as the SMAs identified by NMFS 

regulations and DMAs when they become established. BOEM has 

revised the Programmatic EIS to note that these time-area closures 

would align with any future changes in right whale critical habitat or 

SMAs (e.g., if they are expanded farther offshore). 

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.03 

The Programmatic EIS Contains Procedural Shortcomings That 

Limit the Ability to Review the Underlying Scientific 

Conclusions Regarding the Impacts of G&G Activities on 

Marine Mammals. The draft PEIS contains a significant 

procedural shortcoming, namely it fails to consider a sufficient 

number of meaningful alternatives discussed in the draft EIS. 

SCB is concerned that BOEM imprudently eliminated from 

further consideration several significant alternatives to the 

proposed action in the draft EIS, leaving the existing document 

with no meaningful consideration of practical alternatives 

(other than no-action) to the proposed action. Instead, the EIS 

only provides two substantive choices: G&G activities 

throughout the South and Mid-Atlantic OCS and the same with 

BOEM evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives in the Programmatic 

EIS, including three alternatives (A, B, and C) that were analyzed in 

detail and other alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study 

with a discussion in Chapter 2.5 of the reasons for eliminating them (40 

CFR § 1502.14). We developed the range of alternatives based on the 

underlying purpose and need. The construction of our alternatives 

followed the simple premise that to be a valid alternative it would have 

to fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed action and be 

economically feasible and technically viable. Alternatives recommended 

by the commenter, such as “only conducting G&G in the mid-Atlantic” 

or “only conducting G&G in areas over 20, 50, or 100 miles from shore” 

do not meet the Agency’s purpose and need as presented in Chapter 1.4. 

In addition, they do not serve any specific purpose in mitigating impacts. 
L-202 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

a little bit more mitigation. As has been upheld in several courts, 

“the existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an 

environmental impact statement inadequate.” As a result, an 

agency must “look at every reasonable alternative, with the range 

dictated by the nature and scope of the proposed action and 

sufficient to permit a reasoned choice.” SCB is concerned that 

BOEM did not consider other macro-level options for where and 

when (both seasonally and over subsequent years) G&G 

activities might take place. For example, BOEM did not 

consider in its draft EIS an option for only conducting G&G in 

the mid-Atlantic or only conducting G&G in areas over 20, 50, 

or 100 miles from shore. BOEM also eliminated from detailed 

consideration the possibility of requiring non-air gun acoustic 

surveys in the Atlantic OCS despite the fact that “some air gun 

alternative technologies are available now or in the next 1-5 

years.”26 Even if these technologies are not yet perfected, 

requiring their use in the Atlantic could provide the needed 

incentive for industry to improve these technologies to the point 

that they are comparable to traditional seismic air gun surveys. 

Overall, given the exceptionally high level of marine mammal 

take anticipated, the failure of BOEM to consider additional 

options in the PIES beyond (1) conducting seismic throughout 

the South and Mid-Atlantic planning areas and (2) no G&G 

seismic activities anywhere does not appear to represent a 

sufficiently broad range of alternatives, making the PEIS 

inadequate. Therefore, SCB recommends that BOEM reconsider 

its overall approach in the PEIS, and in regard to G&G seismic 

activities, include more detailed hypothetical periods of inactivity 

to allow marine mammal populations to recover from adverse 

impacts from G&G seismic activities and fully integrate a 

research and monitoring program to determine how well the 

various mitigation measures are working. This should involve

comprehensive impact studies before, during and after any 

seismic activities and an adaptive management program to adjust 

future G&G activities as more is learned about the impact of such 

activities on marine mammal populations. Given the 

uncertainties involved regarding the cumulative impact of 

anthropogenic activities in the marine environment, the PEIS 

should have discussed in detail any seismic program alternatives 

that include a more precautionary approach for undertaking these 

G&G activities.

In contrast, the time-area closures included in Alternatives A and B were 

based on avoidance of impacts to NARWs and nesting sea turtles in 

specific areas that are either protected by laws and regulations (right 

whale critical habitat and SMAs) or documented as high use areas (sea 

turtle nesting in Brevard County, Florida). BOEM considered expanding 

the time-area closures based on areas likely to be of interest to industry 

as well as information made available since release of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS that includes BOEM’s 2012 Atlantic resource 

assessment (USDOI, BOEM, 2012) and NOAA’s cetacean stock 

assessment. Because BOEM believes Alternative B will provide 

adequate protection, BOEM has determined that the extent of the closure 

will remain at 20 nmi from shore.. BOEM has revised the Programmatic 

EIS to note that these time-area closures would align with any future 

changes in right whale critical habitat or SMAs (e.g., if they are 

expanded farther offshore). BOEM has revised and updated the 

discussion of non-airgun alternatives in Chapter 2.5.6 and Appendix C, 

Section 6. However, as stated in Chapter 2.5.6.8, we found that the 

alternative of requiring non airgun sources would not meet the Agency’s 

purpose and need because none of the non airgun alternatives currently 

are economically feasible or technically viable for commercial 

deployment; all of them being in various stages of development. We do 

seek an orderly transition by industry toward alternatives to the impulse 

airgun and permitting incentives are worthy of consideration. Incentives 

may take the form of selective lifting of certain mitigation measures in 

the seismic protocol, or operating in an area or at a time that airguns are 

not permitted. The ability of BOEM to compel an applicant to deploy a 

specific technology they may not consider as adequate to their purpose 

has not been tested. BOEM has added a discussion of Adaptive 

Management to the Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, 

Section 7). As part of its Adaptive Management program, BOEM 

intends to review the effectiveness of mitigation measures based on 

monitoring data collected by PSOs during G&G surveys. BOEM will 

use the process to refine and improve our protective measures.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-203

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.04 

Second, the draft PEIS states that the 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.” 

With respect to the ESA, the draft PEIS states that a BA will 

eventually be provided to the NMFS so that the consultation 

between the two agencies can begin. However, there is no 

indication as to whether the BO will be completed prior to the 

completion of the final PEIS. BOEM states that, instead, the 

draft PEIS “will serve as a reference for environmental 

documentation regarding future site-specific actions. Such 

future documentation will tier off this document in a similar 

fashion to that under NEPA.” As a general practice, it is 

acceptable for an agency to use programmatic documents as a 

reference for future, site-specific environmental analysis. As 

will be discussed in greater detail below, there are significant 

concerns for the cumulative impact that G&G activities will 

have on north Atlantic right whales in specific and other 

endangered marine mammals in general. Therefore, tiering 

site-specific actions to this larger PEIS presents the risk that the 

best available science will be lacking in both the PEIS and 

future, related environmental analyses.

The BA and BO have been included in Appendix A of the 

Programmatic EIS. The discussion of cumulative impacts in Chapter 

4.2.2.4 has been revised to better address impacts to species of concern 

such as the right whale and other marine mammals.

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.05 

By moving forward with the PEIS without the benefit of the 

NMFS’ input, BOEM undermines the ability of the public to 

comment on the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. 

This lack of meaningful review is especially troubling given 

that the PEIS acknowledges that “incidental take was not 

modeled for Alternative B” with respect to the effectiveness of 

mitigation for the north Atlantic right whale. If BOEM and 

NMFS are only approximating how effective mitigation might 

be for right whales, then it is difficult to imagine how the 

public could adequately comment on the proposed mitigation in 

the PEIS either. Because of these shortcomings, SCB 

recommends Alternative C as the only alternative in the PEIS 

that is sufficiently precautionary to fully protect endangered 

species in the Atlantic Ocean.

As a cooperating agency NMFS has played a significant role in the 

development of the Programmatic EIS. A team of NMFS personnel has 

reviewed and commented on several versions of the document prior to its 

release to the public. In addition, BOEM has conducted Endangered 

Species Act consultation with the NMFS to ensure that the proposed 

action would not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species (including the NARW) or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. The Biological Opinion is presented in 

Appendix A and includes NMFS’ reasonable and prudent measures, 

terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations. SCBs support 

for Alternative C is noted.

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.06 

Finally, SCB is concerned that BOEM has not undertaken 

enough of an effort to address areas where there is a lack of 

information regarding the impacts of seismic air gun survey 

activities. NEPA regulations set out an “ordered process” for 

an agency preparing an EIS in the face of missing 

information.31 When there is incomplete information relevant 

The Programmatic EIS uses all relevant and available information in its 

analysis of impacts to marine mammals. The requirements of 40 CFR § 

1502.22 for the treatment of incomplete and unavailable information 

have been met in this Programmatic EIS. BOEM acknowledges that 

there is incomplete or unavailable information for marine mammals as 

indicated in Chapter 4.2.2.1; however, the information identified as 
L-204 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts that is 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, an agency 

must obtain and include the missing information in the EIS if 

the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant.32 The 

CEQ’s regulation furthers NEPA’s purpose of ensuring that 

agencies make “fully informed and well-considered decisions,” 

by ensuring a “widespread discussion and consideration of the 

environmental risks” of a project.33 The PEIS does not fully 

address data gaps that may be critical to the survival and 

recovery of endangered whales in the Atlantic. SCB believes 

that given these uncertainties, especially as they may apply to 

the North Atlantic right whale, that seismic activities should 

not be permitted at this time, given the large gaps in BOEM’s 

knowledge and information about these key scientific issues.

incomplete or unavailable is not “essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives” (40 CFR § 1502.22). Under NEPA, it is the task of the 

implementing agency to make this determination, subject to the 

additional consultations that are required by law. Chapter 4.2.2 reports 

what we know about the marine mammals that use the AOI and further 

supporting information is provided in Appendix H. Additional 

information specifically addressing the NARW was provided in the 

Biological Assessment (see Appendix A). 

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.07 

SCB hopes that BOEM and NMFS will carefully consider the 

cumulative impacts of preexisting stressors on north Atlantic 

right whales as it weighs future seismic activities.

BOEM has considered the cumulative stressors to the critically 

endangered NARW in the Programmatic EIS and will continue to do so 

in future, site-specific evaluations.. While the Programmatic EIS 

addresses this issue, the main vehicle for addressing this concern is the 

Endangered Species Act consultation process. BOEM has completed 

that process, and the outcomes can be found in Appendix A.

Brett Hartl, 

Society for 

Conservation 

Biology 

NGOE-12 0.08 

SCB is very concerned that the conclusion regarding the 

significance of the impacts of seismic activities does not 

represent a meaningful, scientific statement because impacts 

must be evaluated on a species-by-species basis, not in the 

aggregate. Given that the PEIS provides predicted Level A and 

Level B take for all relevant species within the Atlantic 

planning areas, BOEM should also be able to assess whether or 

not such take reaches a particular threshold of significance by 

the definitions it has provided. Stating that the impacts to 

marine mammals will be moderate masks the gravity of the 

potential takes of all of the threatened, endangered and depleted 

marine mammals in the proposed activity area. SCB requests 

that BOEM provide supplemental information addressing 

whether anticipated take will result in major or moderate 

impacts for each ESA-listed or MMPA-depleted species.

An extensive modeling effort was done to quantify levels of impact to 

each marine mammal species. The results of that effort, which includes 

take estimates for each species, can be found in Appendices D and E. 

While the modeling takes into account many variables regarding marine 

mammals, geographic area, and seasonal changes in conditions, 

assessing an impact level for each species would require a number of 

assumptions about the surveys. The level of survey effort for the 

proposed action is based on received permit applications, what will 

actually occur may vary. For that reason, this programmatic analysis has 

assessed impact at the resource level, in this case for marine mammals 

rather than each species. Additional analysis for each site-specific action 

will analyze impacts in greater detail as more specific information is 

made available.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-205

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

General Public (sorted by Last Name)

Peter L. DeFur P-E244 0.01 

Scallop and surf clam grounds are two of the most important 

fishery resources; as such, no exploration work should be 

conducted on such sites, and the oil and gas industry must fund 

research on the impact of any and all exploration activities 

prior to the initiation of any exploration work. If any work is 

carried out near trawling areas, a vessel or commercial expert 

fisherman must be hired to guide them clear of schools of fish 

that must be avoided with a wide area of clearance.

The Programmatic EIS does not involve oil and gas exploration, only 

G&G survey activities. Avoidance of specific fishing areas such as 

scallop beds or surf clam grounds would be considered by BOEM during 

evaluation of individual survey applications that involve 

bottom-disturbing activities. BOEM does not expect that oil and gas or 

renewable energy facilities or marine minerals borrow sites would be 

located within such areas.

Peter L. DeFur P-E244 0.02 

In short, there has simply not been enough study done to 

examine the long-term effects of the noise produced by air guns 

on the animals found in the Mid- and South Atlantic region, but 

the results we do have are distressing.

The Programmatic EIS analyzes potential impacts on marine life of the 

Mid- and South Atlantic Bights using the best available data. BOEM 

and NMFS continue to fund research and sponsor workshops to address 

data gaps.

Lorraine Fleming

PPHWD

E-2 

0.01 

I'm wondering if you have had the benefit of Delaware's marine 

spatial planning document? The -- this was a one-year study by 

graduate students primarily working under Dr. Jeremy 

Firestone in our University of Delaware' College of Earth, 

Ocean and Environment.· It was partly funded by the Sea Grant 

program. Anyway, there was a workshop in November, much 

like this one, to pick up on information that they might have 

missed, that people there -- and there were a lot of professional, 

technical people in attendance. And there were two staff people 

from your agency there, and I hope you're all talking to each 

other.

BOEM has reviewed the document. It should prove particularly useful to 

future site-specific analyses.

Monty Hawkins P-E235 0.01 

Regarding your agency’s assumption that hard-bottom reef 

doesn't exist in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, please see the following 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3nGYeXvkxE for 

professional video footage. First minute is stills of impacted 

reef, rest is HD video of a very typical biotic assemblage of 

MAB hard-bottom reef.

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.1.1.1 to reflect the natural and 

man-made hard-bottom of the Mid-Atlantic Bight.

Monty Hawkins P-E235 0.02 

From your agency’s report: “.Compared to the South Atlantic 

Bight, Mid-Atlantic Bight 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..”

Presumably, your BOEM's seabed charting will reveal hard 

bottoms – it’s not bare: In fact, its Essential Fish Habitat.

BOEM recognizes that hard bottom habitat exists in the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight. As discussed in Chapters 3.5.1.8 and 4.2.1.2.2, BOEM requires 

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.
L-206 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Monty Hawkins P-E235 0.03 

You might also review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-

cMC8JVa2Bk&feature=related & http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=n77WF9XQRJM&feature=related for my personal 

video work. Please know I support both renewable energy 

development & oil exploration. However, the scientific bog of 

poor research pertaining to hard-bottom reef fish habitat must 

be replaced with far better ecological study.

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.2.1.1.1 to reflect the occurrence of 

natural and man-made hard-bottom of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. In 

addition as discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.2.2, BOEM 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. This information will identify the 

location of hard-bottom communities and provide data for mapping of 

these communities.

Doug Nowacek, 

Duke University 

Marine Laboratory

P-E246 0.01 

The take calculations presented in the Programmatic EIS vastly 

underestimate the numbers of takes that will potentially occur. 

These calculations were estimated using the criterion of 160 dB 

RMS received level of seismic pulses. Page xiv in the 

Summary states, ‘...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 and up to 3 km (1.9 mi) from a small airgun 

array, depending on the geographic location and season 

modeled.’ However, behavioral harassment from a large 

airgun array could extend much further than 15 km for several 

reasons. First, some of the most sensitive animals (e.g. beaked 

whales and harbor porpoises) will experience harassment at 

levels well below 160 dB. Second, Nieukirk et al (2012) 

recorded airgun signals out to almost 4000 km away from their 

source. The received levels of these signals were well below 

160 dB, but, as Nieukirk et al. observed, their time and 

frequency characteristics could interfere with the acoustic lives

of some cetaceans. Specifically, the communication signals 

(e.g. song) of fin, sei, minke and other baleen whales could be 

masked at levels not far above baseline ambient. Third, unlike 

the Gulf of Mexico, most of these animals will be naïve to this 

type of stimulus, making it highly unlikely that they will have 

habituated to the sound. For these and other reasons, BOEM’s 

160 dB is not scientifically supportable.

The acoustic exposures and resulting take estimates utilized the 160-dB 

rms criterion for potential behavioral reactions (MMPA Level B 

incidental harassment) that is currently accepted by the Federal 

regulatory agency, National Marine Fisheries Service. The data were 

also analyzed using the Southall et al. (2007) criteria in case the 

regulatory agencies update their requirements. The discussion in 

Chapter 4.2.2 has been expanded to better address this issue. Section 

4.2.2 of Appendix H discusses the issue of auditory masking due to 

anthropogenic noises.

Doug Nowacek, 

Duke University 

Marine Laboratory

P-E246 0.02 

Visual observation alone is an inadequate mitigation tool and 

must be complemented by passive acoustic monitoring. 

Barlow and Gisiner (2006) estimated the ability of visual 

observers to detect beaked whales, for example, is highly 

dependent on weather conditions. Even in excellent conditions, 

only 23% of Cuvier’s beaked whales were detected on the 

survey track line by the most experienced scientific observers; 

BOEM agrees with this comment and has identified Alternative B, which 

requires PAM for airgun surveys, as the Agency's Preferred Alternative. 

Additionally, if BOEM authorizes nighttime operations or if operations 

continue during periods of reduced visibility PAM or other effective 

monitoring technologies (e.g., shipboard lighting, enhanced vision 

equipment, or night –vision equipment) would be incorporated into the 

Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol for non- airgun HRG sources below 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-207

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

less experienced marine mammal observers were considered to 

have roughly a 2% chance of detecting beaked whales on the 

track line. It is not surprising that such animals are missed 

given that they spend most of their time below the surface, but 

Barlow and Gisiner (2006) also noted that the encounter rate 

decreases by 101 as sea conditions go from sea state 1 to 5. 

This is particularly problematic as seismic surveys can occur in 

almost any sea conditions. In the proposed Alternative A, 

passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is described as optional, 

which is both naïve and inappropriate. PAM has been 

demonstrated as a reliable and important tool for mitigation of 

many species during seismic surveys conducted elsewhere in 

the world’s oceans. No observational technique is perfect but 

visual and acoustic methods combined have complementary 

strengths. Without PAM, how will any near‐source mitigation 

occur at night? In the fog? In poor weather conditions? 

Indeed, for operations at night or in poor visibility conditions, 

governments of other countries require the use of PAM 

(e.g., Greenland, Canada).

200 kHz to improve detection of marine mammals and further reduce 

potential impacts to the NARW and other marine mammals. 

Doug Nowacek, 

Duke University 

Marine Laboratory

P-E246 0.03 

The treatment of the subject of noise‐related stress in marine 

mammals is completely inadequate in the PEIS. The 

cumulative, synergistic, and chronic effects of elevated noise 

levels, including those from both “intermittent” and continuous 

sounds, have been demonstrated to be detrimental to humans 

and other mammals, affecting hormone systems as well as 

behavior (Otten et al 2004; Warner and Heimstra 1971), 

including recent findings specifically for marine mammals 

(Rolland et al. 2012; Wright and Highfill 2007). The PEIS 

devotes only four sentences to this subject, even as it 

acknowledges that vast numbers of such intermittent sounds 

will be introduced into the marine environment.

Chapters 3.6.11 and 4.2.2.4 have been revised to provide an expanded 

discussion of this subject. 

Doug Nowacek, 

Duke University 

Marine Laboratory

P-E246 0.04 

Given the distances at which impacts will occur and the 

potential for significant cumulative impacts on a population 

level, it is imperative that BOEM establish time‐area closures 

and prescribe measures that reduce or cap activities. 

Remarkably, the PEIS makes no systematic effort to identify 

important habitat or to propose any time‐area closures for 

species other than the North Atlantic right whale. BOEM 

should engage in that effort and release its findings for 

additional public and scientific comment.

The Programmatic EIS identifies critical habitat for threatened and 

endangered species (see Appendix A) and presents extensive 

information about the habitat requirements of marine mammals, sea 

turtles, fishes, and other marine life (see individual resource sections in 

Chapter 4.0). The Programmatic EIS also identifies EFH and HAPCs, 

as well as other MPAs (see Chapter 4.2.11). In addition, BOEM has 

consulted with NMFS and FWS under the ESA and the MMPA, and will 

consult with ONMS (NOAA) as required by the NMSA at the 

site-specific level per NMFS’s request. All of these processes help to 

ensure that marine life is protected to the greatest extent practicable by 
L-208 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

providing measures that reduce harm to marine life and possibly limit 

activities if warranted by data and analyses as the activities move 

forward. At the programmatic level, BOEM identified time-area 

closures for the NARW and sea turtles as appropriate for inclusion in the 

action alternatives. 

Doug Nowacek, 

Duke University 

Marine Laboratory

P-E246 0.05 

We support Alternative C given the risk to marine species from 

G&G activities. However, given the huge spatial extent of the 

proposed action, the lack of information about potential effects 

on cetaceans, the naïveté of the animals involved, and the 

presumed duration of activities, we believe that a carefully 

controlled, scientific approach should be used to examine the 

potential effects of the proposed activities in the event that 

BOEM decides to allow oil and gas exploration. Specifically, we 

believe that an opportunity exists to conduct an experiment in 

which a certain area (or areas) are closed to seismic exploration, 

so that we can compare the behavior of cetaceans in areas that 

are exposed to such sounds with their behavior in areas without 

exposure. The first task would be to determine how big an area 

would need to be closed (see comments above). We recommend 

the Cape Hatteras Special Research Area (Figure 1), established 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service due to the high density 

of cetaceans along the shelf break off Cape Hatteras, as a perfect 

starting point for such an experimental approach.

Through its Environmental Studies Program, BOEM has sponsored 

research on impacts of seismic surveys in the GOM and expects to 

conduct additional research in the Atlantic if the proposed seismic 

surveys go forward. BOEM is also currently working with NMFS to 

conduct the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species 

(AMAPPS) to assess the distribution of marine mammals and other 

protected species. A discussion of the Cape Hatteras Special Research 

Area has been added to the Programmatic EIS, and it has been added to 

Figure 4-4, which shows other Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.

Ruth Ann 

Purchase 

PPHWD

E-3 

0.01 

First of all, there's a request that complete disclosure of all 

lobbying activity on this subject, as well as international 

corporations' funding of academic research, of all the offshore 

research, especially the validity of mitigation measures. The 

public would like to see who is pushing for this to be done, and 

who is funding the research itself, who funds the academic 

laboratories that are doing the research, since we understand 

that so much of the motivation comes from people who do 

want to make profit from this work.

The proposed G&G surveys included in the proposed action and the 

required mitigation activities would be funded by the geophysical 

companies that apply for survey permits. Research on mitigation is 

being conducted by many individuals and organizations, including 

BOEM and NMFS.

Ruth Ann 

Purchase 

PPHWD

E-3 

0.02 

From the organizations that I participate in, we have 

understood that many environmental scientists, especially 

international scientists, are definitively declaring that there is 

no energy requirement for an increase in natural gas or oil.· 

And that if the current level of funding dedicated to this 

particular project alone were dedicated to energy efficiency and 

energy reduction, less polluting and less damaging processes 

would develop, which would be more in alignment with the 

general international environmental recommendations.

Comment noted.
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-209

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Ruth Ann 

Purchase

PPHWD

E-3 

0.03 

The most valuable cultural resources that would be disturbed 

are not related to modern shipwrecks or tourism, but the ancient 

cities of the original places – of the original people, and sacred 

places, which some believe have an ancient wisdom 

understood, and which modern science ignores, which may be 

why we’re in the dangerous situation we’re in today.

Chapter 1.6.11 discusses the consultation requirements under the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). For specific activities 

included in the proposed action, BOEM will make a determination as to 

whether the actions could affect historic properties, either those in the 

National Register of Historic Places or that meet the criteria for listing. If 

it is determined the action could affect such properties, BOEM will 

identify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer to consult with during the process. 

Consultation is expected to result in a Memorandum of Agreement 

outlining agreed-upon measures that the Agency will take to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

Ruth Ann 

Purchase 

PPHWD

E-3 

0.04 

I would like to know personally if here’s anyone here in the 

room that can answer the question, I would like an answer 

tonight to be able to take back to people, about the process for 

disclosure of who’s funding the research, and·especially the 

mitigation aspect, and how Native Americans are being 

included in the process of evaluating the damages that would 

be done.

The proposed G&G surveys included in the proposed action and the 

required mitigation activities would be funded by the geophysical 

companies that apply for survey permits. Native Americans may be 

included in the NHPA consultation process for individual survey 

activities as described in the preceding response. If it determines that a 

specific proposed action could affect historic properties, BOEM would 

identify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer to consult with during the process. 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 (G2G) basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal selfgovernment, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other 

rights. BOEM generally does not formally consult with Indian tribal 

governments for a programmatic EIS because of the broad scope of the 

proposed actions discussed in the Programmatic EIS, and the lack of a 

specific Federal action on which to consult. The G2G consultations are 

further complicated at this stage by the scope of geological and 

geophysical activities that span three program areas: oil and gas, 

renewable energy, and marine minerals. While certain analyzed 

activities are common for all three program areas, others are limited to a 

specific program area (e.g., seismic surveys using airguns are typically 

only used in the oil and gas program area). Furthermore, while the 

Programmatic EIS discusses a range of proposed activities with a range 

of potential impacts, BOEM will not know the exact nature of an action 

until it is proposed and evaluated by the bureau. Finally, BOEM has 

already initiated and held G2G consultations with Indian tribal 

governments under its Renewable Energy Program area for the Mid-
L-210 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Atlantic, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts Wind Energy Areas. 

While there are no Indian tribal government lands on the Outer 

Continental Shelf 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. As seen in Chapter 5.4, the Draft Programmatic EIS was 

sent to federally-recognized tribes in the Atlantic Region that BOEM 

identified as having tribal or ancestral lands bordering the Atlantic. This 

action in and of itself does not constitute consultation, but does illustrate 

a good-faith effort on the part of BOEM to inform Indian tribal 

governments of the proposed actions. 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 G2G consultation.

Mark Swingle, 

Virginia Aquarium 

& Marine Science 

Center

P-E190 0.01 

We support Alternative C – No Action for Oil and Gas, Status 

Quo for Renewable Energy and Marine Mineral G&G Activity.

Comment noted.

Mark Swingle, 

Virginia Aquarium 

& Marine Science 

Center 

P-E190 0.02 

The DPEIS accurately indicates that there is a very wide range 

of possible behavioral responses to sound exposure, given that 

the sound is audible to the particular animal. However, your 

point that the following list is increasing in severity, but 

decreasing in likelihood, is questionable when the sound 

exposure is of the scale involved with seismic exploration: 

none observable – animals can become less sensitive over 

repeated exposures; looking or increased alertness; minor 

behavioral responses such as vocal modifications associated 

with masking; cessation of feeding or social interactions; 

temporary avoidance behavior (emerging as one of the more 

common responses); modification of group structure or activity 

state; habitat abandonment; and/or injury and/or death via 

direct response or possibly exacerbated by physiological 

factors. Southall et al. (2007) found that sounds of 120-150dB 

can trigger behavioral changes that are not necessarily minor, 

and occur far from noise sources. Baleen whales response to 

multiple pulsed sounds (e.g. airguns) showed avoidance, brief 

cessation of reproductive behavior, aggressive behavior (e.x. 

tail/flipper slapping, jaw clapping, abrupt directed movement), 

and brief and extended changes in vocalization. These types of 

reactions for sounds between 120-150 dB were documented in 

approximately 60% of baleen whale studies observed in this 

Analyses of potential impacts from proposed activities to marine 

mammals were based on incidental take estimates that were calculated 

using currently accepted practices, including current spatial and temporal 

density estimates and available behavioral information by species, sound 

source propagation modeling to estimate injurious (180 dB) and noninjurious (160 dB) acoustic threshold radii (integrated to estimate areas). 

Recent literature suggests that individual mammals, such as baleen 

whales, may demonstrate behavioral effects during seismic surveys at 

distances that are greater than the modeled 160-dB radii. These 

responses indicate an error in sound propagation modeling methods 

and/or the onset of behavioral response at lower sound levels than 

160 dB. References have been added to the EIS, where appropriate, to 

identify this issue.

BOEM is undertaking this NEPA process because currently there is no 

programmatic NEPA coverage for permitting G&G activities in Atlantic 

OCS waters for all three program areas overseen by BOEM (oil and gas, 

renewable energy and marine minerals). Because of the level of potential 

activity in all three program areas, BOEM's proposed action is seeking to 

gather the most up-to-date and best available scientific information 

available in order to carry out any G&G activity in a sound manner. 

BOEM further anticipates that as G&G activities move forward and take 

place on the Atlantic OCS, an adaptive management plan will be put in 

place (see Chapter 1.7.6 and Appendix C, Section 7) in order to 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-211

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

study. Foraging disruption is the behavioral impact most likely 

to affect long-term health of individuals or populations. 

Jochens et al. (2008) found that whales may remain at the 

surface when exposed to sound levels of 160 dB, and may not 

dive to feed until the sound exposure stopped. The study also 

found that no tagged whale made a deep dive closer than 4 km

from the array. The authors found that a 20% decrease in 

overall foraging activity is likely to occur near airguns. 

Additionally, no observable response from a particular 

individual or group of animals does not necessarily mean the 

sound is having no effect. Tyack (2008) points out that in 

addition to acute behavioral responses there is significant risk 

to populations of marine mammals from less visible effects of 

chronic exposure. There is risk that this level of seismic 

surveys will have an impact on marine mammals. The degree 

of this effect is currently unquantifiable and not fully 

understood. Since we believe that there is no immediate need 

for these surveys to take place, it would be irresponsible for 

BOEM to approve the proposed Action.

continuously review and revise existing mitigations (NTLs, stipulations, 

conditions) applicable to all lessee/permittees operating on the OCS so 

that all of the marine environment is adequately protected. 

Mark Swingle, 

Virginia Aquarium 

& Marine Science 

Center 

P-E190 0.03 

Species density estimates and acoustic modeling were used to 

report the number of takes per grid block throughout the survey 

area for all marine mammal species (Section 4.2.2.2). Based 

on these take estimates, the PEIS reports that the proposed 

Actions, “would result in negligible or minor impacts to marine 

mammals” (Sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3). According to 

Section 1.6.7 of the DPEIS, the take data reported will be used 

to “serve as a reference for environmental documentation 

regarding future site-specific Actions.” Overall, we recognize 

the efforts the BOEM has made to compile species density data 

and model the effect of acoustics on protected species. 

However, we assert that the baseline density data used may be 

a gross underestimate of actual density due to the lack of 

sufficient marine mammal sighting data, on a regional and 

seasonal scale, throughout the proposed G&G survey area. 

One of the assumptions of the complex acoustic modeling

effort used in this study was “animal density estimates would 

use the best available data, specified by location and season, for 

the modeling effort.” Additionally, the report states that “the 

AIM (acoustic integration modeling) was used to estimate the 

impacts per survey block for each species, based on the typical 

planned geometry for each type of survey in each modeled area 

The U.S. Navy’s Operating Area Density Estimates (NODE) data are 

currently the best available data for estimating marine mammal densities 

in the Mid/South Atlantic Planning Areas. BOEM has used these data 

within the analyses contained within this Programmatic EIS. The data 

are also used as part of the marine mammal take estimations via the 

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM©). BOEM does agree and recognize 

that there are data gaps in marine mammal density information for these 

areas. As such, we have partnered with NOAA and other organizations 

to fund projects to improve biological information on protected species 

in the U.S. Atlantic. Two notable programs include:

• Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) 

– This is an effort to collect broad-scale data over multiple years on the 

seasonal distribution and abundance of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds), marine turtles, and sea birds using direct aerial and shipboard 

surveys of coastal U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters. The project will also 

collect similar data at finer scales at several sites of particular interest to 

NMFS and BOEM. Importantly, AMAPPS also seeks to assess the 

population size of surveyed species at regional scales and develop

models and associated tools to translate these survey data into seasonal, 

spatially explicit density estimates incorporating habitat characteristics 

(see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/protspp/mainpage/AMAPPS/).

index.html and http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Environmental_
L-212 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

where the surveys would be conducted, using the appropriate 

thresholds for that species.” Therefore; the potential 

physiological and behavioral impacts to marine mammals in 

this study are being based on a model that relies on accurate 

animal density estimates. The density estimates were 

developed as the NAVY Operating Area Density Estimates 

(NODE) in 2007 (U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2007). These 

density estimates were based on the NMFS Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center (SEFSC) shipboard surveys conducted between 

1994 and 2006. Virginia falls under the jurisdiction of NOAA 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. While SEFSC surveys do 

occasionally cover Virginia waters, these efforts are generally 

limited, conducted on a very broad scale, and usually species 

specific (most surveys have focused on bottlenose dolphins, 

Tursiops truncatus). The DPEIS identifies Zone 20 extending 

across the continental shelf from Cape Lookout to the Delaware 

Bay, including Virginia waters. Many of the species have zero 

or near zero reported average densities (4.2.2.2), but have 

regular presence in Virginia stranding and sighting records 

(Table 1 provided). Humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) and bottlenose dolphins are of particular interest, 

because both our sighting reports and our stranding data are 

inconsistent with these densities (Figure 1 provided). The 

DPEIS reports a zero density of humpback whales and a 

0.00002 density of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in Zone 

20; however, using photo-identification techniques, VAQF has 

documented a minimum of 57 humpback whales and 5 fin 

whales in near-shore Virginia ocean waters from December 

2011 through February 2012. In addition, the DPEIS reports a 

density of 0.1816 bottlenose dolphins in Zone 20. During 2011, 

a total of 14,576 km of aerial survey transits resulted in 346 

bottlenose dolphin group sightings within Zone 20. The groups 

ranged in size from 1 to 65 animals and totaled 2,010 

individuals (Figure 1 provided). As these examples show, lack 

of formal survey data from the mid-Atlantic region resulted in a 

model with large areas of zero and near zero density, despite 

extensive anecdotal stranding and sighting records. The lack of 

robust (e.g. consistent and fine scale), yearlong, comprehensive 

data causes several problems when researchers calculate 

abundance estimates. First, the lack of yearlong survey data 

limits researcher’s ability to calculate abundance over a 

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Gulf_of_Mexico_Region/Ongoing_

Studies/AT-10-x11.pdf). 

• BOEM, working with NOAA, has developed the Multipurpose Marine 

Cadastre, an integrated marine information system that provides legal, 

physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic 

information system framework (see http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-GasEnergy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Multi-Purpose-Marine-CadastreMap-Viewer/Index.aspx). 

Ultimately, NEPA requires that Federal agencies use the best available 

information in environmental impact statements, which BOEM has done. 

BOEM will continue to monitor the results of AMAPPS and other 

relevant studies (i.e., NOAA Sound and Cetacean Density Mapping) to 

ensure any updated data are considered as they become available to 

support future, site-specific evaluations of individual survey 

applications. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-213

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

population’s entire habitat. Second, visual line-transect data are 

subject to perception and availability bias, and should not be used 

to calculate abundance without appropriate methodology to allow 

for bias correction. However, the NODE density model cited in 

the DPEIS assumes an availability bias, or g(0), of 1 which 

underestimates the species density by assuming that there are no 

animals under the surface of the water (U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 

2007b). Finally, survey design of multiple efforts must be 

conducted from similar platforms using comparable 

methodology to allow for data compatibility. Existing regional 

sighting datasets cannot be pieced together to calculate wide-

scale population and abundance estimates. The sighting data 

used in the analysis suffers from these biases and the presence or 

absence of species in the DPEIS should not be predicted using 

uncorrected sighting data. Furthermore, marine mammals and 

turtles, as well as avian species, are migratory animals that have 

seasonally specific habitats. These habitats have vast ecological 

ranges, crossing multiple political boundaries, and animals may 

change behavioral patterns in response to anthropogenic 

activities. Robust distribution and abundance estimates for 

migratory marine species must be available on temporal and 

spatial scales that incorporate all ecological niches for these 

species. Currently, these data are not available for appropriate 

EIS or environmental NEPA analyses. There are critical gaps in 

density data available for marine species population assessments 

of cetaceans, including critically endangered right whales and 

other ESA whale species, as well as for endangered sea turtles, 

shore birds and waterfowl in the mid -Atlantic region. The last 

comprehensive, year-long marine mammal and sea turtle surveys 

of the Atlantic coast were the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

The density estimates used in the DPEIS report are in no way an 

accurate representation of animal density in Virginia waters and 

therefore it is not sensible to use the results of this model for our 

area. It would be careless to base a study on noise that has the 

potential to cause direct behavioral and physiological impacts to 

marine mammals, including impacts that could lead to death, on 

a biological model using such limited data. It is important that 

BOEM work with other federal agencies and NMFS to fill these 

data gaps and re-create the acoustic model used to predict take 

numbers, prior to issuing an environmental impact finding for the 

seismic surveys.
L-214 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Mark Swingle, 

Virginia Aquarium 

& Marine Science 

Center 

P-E190 0.04 

The seismic surveys proposed in the G&G DPEIS are not 

necessary for development of the WEAs given that BOEM is 

already authorized to move forward with the less invasive sidescan surveys that meet the needs of benthic studies for wind 

tower construction.

The comment is essentially reiterating the recommendation that BOEM 

select Alternative C, which would maintain the status quo for renewable 

energy and marine minerals surveys while not allowing G&G surveys 

for oil and gas development. Alternative C is addressed and evaluated in 

Chapter 2.0. 

Ginger Taylor

PPHWN

C-43 

0.01 

Will BOEM post the comments and transcripts in verbatim on 

websites so all us citizens would have the benefit of them? ... I 

think the fair thing to do for your agency is not -- drag us 

citizens through the knothole of a FOIA request and volunteer 

to post -- and volunteer to post it. I've worked with other 

Federal agencies on DIS and EIS matters, and they do that. 

Please post it on a website and make it available to all of us.

BOEM has posted the public meeting transcripts, comment letters, 

emails, and mailed comment sheets on the Programmatic EIS website at

http://www.boem.gov/oil-and-gas-energy-program/GOMR/GandG.aspx. 

The Final Programmatic EIS includes an appendix that addresses all of 

the comments received during the public comment period for the Draft 

Programmatic EIS.

Ginger Taylor

PPHWN

C-43 

0.02 

The second administrative comment is the fact that for several 

years the US Navy considered construction of a 23 square mile 

sonar range in the Onslow Bight off the general Morehead City 

area. There was extensive research done on fish and marine 

mammal and sea turtle movement through that area and the 

impact of -- of sonar type systems, of scrubee (phonetic) and 

explosives on those creatures. Well, the Navy decided not to 

build that range there, but that data exists. Have you made 

yourself available of that research?

Information developed by the U.S. Navy for their Environmental Impact 

Statement was evaluated for use in this Programmatic EIS and 

incorporated where appropriate.

Ginger Taylor

PPHWN

C-43 

0.03 

Under Alternative B, you mentioned sea turtles nesting on the 

Central Florida coast.· Extensive numbers -- I don't know how 

many hundreds of sea turtles of all species in the Atlantic range 

nest on the North Carolina coast from Hatteras southward. It’s 

not just a Central Florida issue.

Chapter 4.2.3.1 discusses the range and distribution of sea turtle species 

including nesting beaches. Although nesting can occur along most of the 

shoreline from Virginia to Florida, the highest numbers by far are found 

in the Broward County area. For that reason mitigation measures focused 

on that area and this area was included in Alternative B for additional 

closures. The entire range and distribution of sea turtles were considered 

in the impact analysis included in Chapters 4.3.2.2 (Alternative A),

4.3.3.1.2 (Alternative B), and 4.4.3 (Alternative C).

Ginger Taylor

PPHWN

C-43 

0.04 

You mentioned the Northern Right Whale spawning off 

Florida. They also spawn off the Southeastern North Carolina 

coast, not in the numbers they do off Florida, but they give 

birth -- I'm not -- sorry -- spawn – they calve off the 

Southeastern North Carolina coast.

As noted in Figure 2-1, the U.S. SMAs, several locations are identified, 

including the area off of North Carolina, are identified as Migratory 

Route and Calving Grounds. As illustrated in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, these 

areas would be exclusion areas for airgun surveys during these critical 

times.

Vicki Weeks, 

Weeks Consulting

P-PHS1 0.01 

As we look at this specific study, I noticed that most of the survey was 

focused on the seismic airgun but I also notice that electromagnetics are 

basically involved and in terms of marine mammal navigation I believe 

we've seen some substantial scientific evidence showing that marine 

mammals use magnetic orientation in their navigational and biological 

processes and I don’t see that that was at all addressed here. In terms, 

that's pretty much your operational events.

While magnetotelluric surveys are passive measurement of the Earth’s 

electromagnetic fields, controlled source electromagnetic surveys do 

induce a low frequency (around 1 Hz) and low voltage electromagnetic 

signal into the upper layers of the seafloor via a dipole towed just above 

the seafloor. The signal attenuates rapidly in seawater to a level much 

below the Earth’s magnetic field within meters of the source; therefore,

further analysis was not performed. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS

L-215

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued)

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

Vicki Weeks, 

Weeks Consulting

P-PHS1 0.02 

As we talk about the marine mammal population here with 

regard to this specific seismic exploration, I also noticed that it 

was no mention of the sea turtles here on Tybee and Coastal 

Georgia, which I believe we do have a fairly substantial 

population in this area.

Chapter 4.2.3.1 provides information on sea turtle populations and 

discusses nesting along the southeastern U.S. coast including Georgia. 

Figure 4-14 shows densities of sea turtle nesting by county, including 

five Georgia coastal counties. Loggerhead turtles are the most common 

sea turtle species nesting in Georgia. The relative percentage of total 

loggerhead nesting in Georgia is 1.5%, compared with approximately 

80% in Florida. Nesting of other sea turtle species in Georgia (green and 

leatherback) is considered to be uncommon.

Vicki Weeks, 

Weeks Consulting

P-PHS1 0.03 

I know that the coastal bottom dolphins are not listed as a 

threatened or endangered species, but they are in terms of the 

tourism in this area, a key draw to people coming to visit the

area.

All marine mammals that might be found in the proposed Area of 

Interest, including a number of species of dolphin, are discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.2. 

Vicki Weeks, 

Weeks Consulting

P-PHS1 0.04 

And when you talk about the incidental taking, the killing is 

one level of impact but there is also the behavioral changes and 

those behavioral changes can be substantial to these 

populations of other marine mammals that are really crucial to 

our tourism industry here.

A complete discussion of behavioral as well as potential injurious 

impacts resulting from the use of active acoustic sound sources can be 

found in Chapters 4.2.2.2 and 4.3.2.2. Both Level A (Injury) and Level 

B (Behavioral Harassment) criteria have been used throughout the 

Programmatic EIS to calculate the take numbers and for evaluation of 

impacts. 

David K. Wiles P-E-33 0.01 

I found several of the methodological calculations 

disingenuous. Perhaps the best illustration is the sea turtles at 

the Archie Carr preserve and the convoluted logic that reduced 

their ‘take’ impact to Minor for the entire AOI. The logic that 

adding the Archie Carr preserve, a relatively small area south 

of the designated underwater area of G&G interest (less than 

5% of total area) for Alternative B compensation in an ‘impact’ 

to the total area is an excellent illustration of a series of small 

mistakes sweeping on to a grand fallacy. The BEOM proposal 

notes that 25% of all loggerhead turtles are found on the 

Preserve but, to me, this seems to indicate that the sea waters 

along the entire Florida coast are affected as these marine 

mammals swim toward the nesting area. Have BEOM officials 

thought of currents and tides and waves in their consideration 

of overall water mass? There is some discussions of ‘near 

shore’ and deep water in terms of hatchlings and various 

species of sea turtles but where is the argument to justify 

downgrading risk from Moderate to Minor? If the Archie Carr 

Preserve turtles had contained 75% of all loggerheads would 

this have reduced the ‘risk’ to this marine sea turtle even more?

To Negligible as far as seismic air gun effect? I would 

discount Alternative B on the misrepresentation of ‘near shore 

waters off Brevard County’ alone.

Alternative B includes a time-area closure of near-coastal waters 

offshore Brevard County, Florida during the sea turtle nesting season 

(May 1 through October 31). As discussed in Chapter 4.3.3.1.2, 

potential impacts to sea turtles under Alternative B were reduced from 

moderate to minor (in comparison with Alternative A) because of the 

decreases in potential disturbance to dense aggregations of turtles 

offshore Brevard County. A time-area closure in a relatively small area 

can change overall impact conclusions if the closure area (and season) 

consists of a preferred feeding, breeding, or nesting area. The closure 

area consists of highly used nesting beaches, including a small portion of 

the Archie Carr NWR, which supports 25% of all loggerhead nesting in 

the U.S. as noted in Chapter 4.2.3.1.1. The seasonal airgun exclusion 

area extends out to 11 km from shore in the area where a large number of 

sea turtles mate and rest during the nesting season. The Programmatic 

EIS evaluates impacts with respect to context and intensity as required 

by NEPA regulations (40 CFR § 1508.27) as explained in Chapter 4.1.2

(for all resources) and Chapter 4.2.3.2.1 (for sea turtles). The impact 

ratings (negligible, minor, moderate, and major) are provided to 

summarize the impact analysis and to aid in comparing alternatives. One 

can disagree with the ratings for individual resources. However, BOEM 

believes that the change in impact rating for sea turtles under 

Alternative B is reasonable based on the potential impacts that would be 

avoided in this area.
L-216 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Table L-6. Comment Summary and Response Table for Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Response (continued). 

Name, 

Organization ID No. Comment Response 

David K. Wiles P-E-33 0.02 

Two other areas of policy consideration where Alternative B 

seems particularly weak are the distances imposed for 

concurrent seismic testing and the ‘guidance’ from NASA and 

military operations. The Alternative B proposes a 25 nautical 

mile distance between concurrent seismic air gun testing. Yet 

the logic behind such a stipulation demonstrates such distance 

is speculation and hope. In reality, concurrent testing is likely 

to be the current best practice of oil and gas explorers of about 

9.5 nautical miles. In other words, Alternative B is 

unenforceable in any practical way.

This Alternative B requirement for separation between simultaneous 

seismic surveys would be enforced by BOEM through the requirements 

in the permits that would be issued to operators for each specific survey. 

Based on the number of small number of applications received by 

BOEM to date and the large size of the survey area proposed by each 

operator, the separation distance is reasonable and achievable. 

Additional guidance regarding NASA and military coordination has been 

added to Chapters 2.1.2.8, 3.8, and 3.9. 

David K. Wiles P-E-33 0.03 

A final question about the actual implementation of Alternative 

B would be the relationship of BEOM and NASA or various 

branches of the military (Navy, Coast Guard) in terms of 

‘guidance’ given one another, especially in the ‘closed’ 

seasons. The navy wants an underseas weapons training 

facility based out of Jacksonville/Mayport Florida that contains 

much of the water properties as the BEOM exploration. NASA 

space mission activities also use the Atlantic waters off the 

eastern seaboard. I believe much of Alternative B calculation of 

Negligible or Minor ‘risk’ and ‘impact’ are problematic to 

coordination with other agencies and political interests in the 

use of USA waters.

One of the 13 resource areas addressed in the Programmatic EIS, Other 

Marine Uses, addresses the potential for conflict among Federal agencies 

or branches of the military. For Alternative B, that discussion can be 

found in Chapter 4.3.12. BOEM has been in contact with NASA and 

branches of the military regarding the proposed action, and their input 

led to changes in Chapter 2.1.2.8. They will be consulted during future 

evaluations of site-specific actions. A new Section has been added to 

discuss NASA coordination. Reference Chapter 5.7.7. 

Received After Close of the Public Comment Period

Oceana and 

International Fund 

for Animal 

Welfare 

N/A N/A

North Atlantic Right Whales (NARW) are present throughout 

the year off the Virginia coast. NARW were detected outside 

the bounds of the proposed time-area closure. This new 

information demonstrates that the assumptions under which the 

Draft EIS “analyzed impacts, proposed alternatives, and 

adopted mitigation measures are not justified, and constitutes 

significant new information for purpose of NEPA.

Accordingly, it is now necessary for the Bureau to re-scope the 

issues and alternatives, and develop a new Draft EIS for public 

comment prior to advancing further with the Atlantic seismic 

exploration program.” (This comment and associated 

information was presented to BOEM over one year after the 

comment period closed.) 

The information provided with this comment is based on data that were

presented to BOEM’s Deputy Director and other key staff on 

December 6, 2013; however, the data have not yet been finalized, 

published, or peer-reviewed. The analyses within the Draft and Final 

Programmatic EIS’s currently acknowledge that NARWs can be found 

outside of the NARW closure areas and throughout the AOI (Chapter 

4.2.2.1.1). BOEM still believes, based on the best available information 

at this time, that the 20-nmi NARW closure area provides effective 

protection to the core migratory areas and NARW critical habitat.

Within this final Programmatic EIS, BOEM also added a Level B 

harassment buffer to the 20-nmi time-area closure, critical habitat, 

SMAs, and DMAs. Based on the acoustic propagation modeling 

described in Table D-22 of Appendix D, this may add an additional 

buffer to the 20-nmi, ranging from 4 km to 15 km. BOEM will continue 

to analyze the best available information on NARW distribution and 

seasonality during the site-specific reviews. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-217

5. REFERENCES CITED

Barkaszi, M.J., M. Butler, R. Compton, A. Unietis, and B. Bennet. 2012. Seismic survey mitigation 

measures and marine mammal observer reports. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-015. 

28 pp. + apps.

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.

Federal Register. 2012a. Notice of Availability of a draft programmatic environmental impact

statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. March 30, 2012, 

77 FR 62, p. 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&fromBrowse=true. Accessed June 14, 2012.

Federal Register. 2012b. 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.

Gentry, R.L. 2002. Mass stranding of beaked whales in the Galapagos Islands, April 2000. Report for 

the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/health/galapagos_stranding.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2013.

Martin, B., J. MacDonnel, N.E. Chorney, and D. Zeddies. 2012. Sound source verification of Fugro 

geotechnical sources final report: Boomer, sub-bottom profiler, multibeam sonar, and the R/V Taku. 

JASCO Document 00413, Version 1.0 DRAFT. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for 

Fugro GeoServices, Inc. 31 pp.

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. 

National Science Foundation and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 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. Dept. of the 

Interior, 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. 

National Research Council. 2003. 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.

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 # M11PC00031. 135 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. Dept. of the Interior, 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.
L-218 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Piniak, W.E.D., D.A. Mann, S.A. Eckert, and C.A. Harms. 2012. 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.

Redfern J.V., M.C. Ferguson, E.A. Becker, K.D. Hyrenbach, C. Good, J. Barlow, K. Kaschner, 

M.F. Baumgartner, K.A. Forney, L.T. Balance, P. Fauchald, P. Halpin, T. Hamazaki, A.J. Pershing, 

S.S. Qian, A. Read, S.B. Reilly, L. Torres, and F. Werner. 2006. Techniques for cetacean-habitat 

modeling: A review. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 310:271–295. 

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.

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. 

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. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Navy. 2001. Joint 

interim report, Bahamas Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 15–16 March 2000. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service

and U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Washington, DC. 59 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/pdfs/health/stranding_bahamas2000.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Assessment of undiscovered 

technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the Atlantic outer continental shelf 2011 as of 

January 1, 2009. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, Office of Resource Evaluation., New Orleans, LA. 39 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Resource_

Evaluation/Resource_Assessment/BOEM-2012-016[1].pdf. Accessed September 10, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 2012a. 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.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 2012b. 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 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.

Wright, A.J., ed. 2009. Report of the Workshop on Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Underwater 

Noise with Other Anthropogenic Stressors on Marine Mammals: From Ideas to Action, Monterey, 

California, USA, 26th - 29th August, 2009. Okeanos - Foundation for the Sea, Auf der Marienhöhe 15, 

D-64297 Darmstadt. 67 + iv pp. Internet website: http://www.sound-in-the-sea.org/download/

CIA2009_en.pdf. 
Public Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS L-219

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.

APPENDIX M 

 

SUMMARY OF PENDING ACTIONS AND CHANGES

Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. 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..................................................................................................................... M-1

2. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE; 90-DAY FINDING ON PETITIONS 

TO LIST THE DUSKY SHARK AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.................................................................................................. M-10

3. MARINE MAMMAL STOCK ASSESSMENTS........................................................................ M-10

4. MARINE MAMMAL ACOUSTIC THRESHOLD CRITERIA.................................................. M-10

5. CETACEAN DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION MAPPING GROUP (CETMAP) ................... M-11

6. BOEM-FUNDED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES .................................................................... M-11

7. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................. M-11

Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure M-1. Index Map of Terrestrial (nesting beaches) Critical Habitat Units.................................... M-2

Figure M-2. Proposed Critical Habitat (migratory and winter habitat) off North Carolina ................... M-3

Figure M-3. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-03) off North Carolina...... M-4

Figure M-4. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-04 and N-05) off 

North Carolina.................................................................................................................... M-5

Figure M-5. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-07 through N-11) off 

South Carolina and Georgia............................................................................................... M-6

Figure M-6. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-12 and N-13) off

Georgia............................................................................................................................... M-7

Figure M-7. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-14) off Florida .................. M-8

Figure M-8. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-15 and N-16) off............... M-9

Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table M-1. Northwest Atlantic Ocean Loggerhead Sea Turtle Distinct Population Segment 

Critical Habitat Types within the Area of Interest............................................................. M-9

Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-1

1. 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

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have 

recently 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. The FWS 

proposed terrestrial critical habitat (nesting beaches) in proposed rulemaking issued on March 25, 2013 

(Federal Register, 2013a). NMFS proposed critical habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean loggerhead 

turtle DPS, which includes individuals found within the Area of Interest (AOI), on July 18, 2013 (Federal 

Register, 2013b). 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. The general location of nesting beaches identified by FWS is shown in Figure M-1; detailed 

maps of the 36 areas are provided in the FWS proposed rule announcement (Federal Register, 2013a). 

Marine areas within the AOI proposed for critical habitat designation by NMFS are shown in 

Figures M-2 through M-8. 

Four important habitat types associated with the proposed critical habitat designation have been 

defined as follows:

• Nearshore Reproductive Habitat: These units are those directed at conserving 

hatchling swim frenzy and internesting turtle habitat directly off high density nesting 

beaches and beaches adjacent to them, as defined by FWS in their proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle (Federal Register, 2013a); this 

habitat extends from the shoreline (Mean High Water) seaward 1.6 km (1 mile). 

• Winter Habitat: The physical and biological factors (PBF), water temperature 

primary constituent elements (PCE), and Gulf Stream boundary PCE of the winter 

habitat for loggerhead sea turtles; the best available data indicate that the area south 

of Cape Hatteras is an important winter concentration area, especially for turtles from 

the Northern Recovery Unit and other Recovery Units that may forage in northern 

waters. 

• Breeding Habitat: The PBF of a concentrated breeding habitat and the associated 

PCE of high concentrations of reproductive male and female loggerheads (which 

facilitates breeding for individuals migrating to that area); two concentrated breeding 

habitats were noted by NMFS, with the first location off southern Florida, from the 

shore out to the 200 m (656 ft) contour in between the Marquesas Keys and the 

Martin County/Palm Beach County line, while the second area is located in the 

nearshore waters just south of Cape Canaveral, Florida, the latter of which are within 

and immediately adjacent to the southern portion of the AOI. 

• Constricted Migratory Habitat: NMFS identified two migratory corridors that are 

constricted in width, as indicated by both the width of the continental shelf and 

available satellite tracks, and thus more vulnerable to perturbations than other 

migratory areas along the continental shelf; these migratory corridors occur off the 

coast of North Carolina and Florida; the primary impact to the functionality of the 

identified corridors as migratory routes for loggerhead sea turtles would be a loss of 

passage conditions that allow for the free and efficient migration along the corridor. 

The loss of these passage conditions could come from large-scale and or multiple 

construction projects that result in the placement of substantial structures along the 

path of the migration, or other similar habitat alterations, requiring large-scale 

deviations in the migration movements.
M-2 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure M-1. Index Map of Terrestrial (nesting beaches) Critical Habitat Units (from Federal Register, 2013a).
Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-3

Figure M-2. Proposed Critical Habitat (migratory and winter habitat) off North Carolina (from Federal Register, 

2013b).
M-4 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure M-3. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-03) off North Carolina (from Federal 

Register, 2013b).
Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-5

Figure M-4. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-04 and N-05) off North Carolina (from

Federal Register, 2013a).
M-6 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure M-5. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-07 through N-11) off South Carolina 

and Georgia (from Federal Register, 2013b).
Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-7

Figure M-6. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-12 and N-13) off Georgia (from Federal 

Register, 2013b).
M-8 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Figure M-7. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-14) off Florida (from Federal Register, 

2013b).
Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-9

Figure M-8. Proposed Critical Habitat (nearshore reproductive habitat; N-15 and N-16) off Florida (from

Federal Register, 2013b).

The numbers of critical habitat types within the AOI by State are shown in Table M-1. 

Table M-1 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean Loggerhead Sea Turtle Distinct Population Segment Critical Habitat Types 

within the Area of Interest

Critical Habitat Type State

North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida

Nearshore Reproductive Habitat 3 4 4 5

Winter Habitat 1 - - -

Breeding Habitat - - - 1

Constricted Migratory Habitat 1 - - 1

Total 5 4 4 7
M-10 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

A wide variety of activities may affect the proposed critical habitat and may be subject to the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation process when carried out, funded, or authorized by 

a Federal agency. These include (1) nearshore and in-water construction, dredging, and sediment 

disposal, such as construction and maintenance of offshore structures such as breakwaters, groins, jetties, 

and artificial reefs; construction and maintenance of transportation projects (e.g., bridges) and utility 

projects; dredging and sediment disposal; and channel blasting; (2) fisheries management, such as Federal 

commercial fisheries and related activities; (3) oil and gas exploration and development, such as 

decommissioning of old oil and gas platforms, construction of nearshore oil and gas platforms, and oil 

and gas activity transport in the nearshore environment; (4) renewable energy projects, such as ocean 

thermal energy, wave energy, and offshore wind energy; (5) some military activities, such as in-water 

training and research; and (6) aquaculture, such as marine species propagation (Federal Register, 2013b). 

The marine critical habitat designation was proposed on July 18, 2013, and is undergoing a 40-day 

comment period that ends on September 16, 2013.

2. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE; 90-DAY FINDING 

ON PETITIONS TO LIST THE DUSKY SHARK AS THREATENED 

OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

NMFS announced a 90-day finding on petitions to list the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) 

range-wide or, in the alternative, the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico population of the dusky 

shark as a threatened or endangered DPS under the ESA, and to designate critical habitat concurrently 

with the listing. NMFS made two determination regarding the dusky shark, including (1) that the 

petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may 

be warranted for the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico population of dusky shark and (2) that the 

petitions fail to present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 

action may be warranted for the dusky shark range-wide. Therefore, NMFS conducted a status review of 

the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico population of dusky shark to determine if the petitioned action 

is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, they solicited scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to this petitioned species from any interested party; the comment period closed 

July 17, 2013 (Federal Register, 2013c). 

3. MARINE MAMMAL STOCK ASSESSMENTS

Marine mammal stock assessments were used throughout this Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for information about the affected environment with respect to marine mammals present 

in the AOI (Waring et al., 2010). At the time that the Programmatic EIS was being prepared, the 2010 

stock assessments were the most current information; however, they are updated regularly by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Individual surveys that require Marine Mammal 

Protection Act authorizations should access the most current stock assessments for this coordination with 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and NMFS available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

nefsc/publications/tm/tm223/index.html. 

4. MARINE MAMMAL ACOUSTIC THRESHOLD CRITERIA

At present, NMFS specifies that marine mammals exposed to pulsed sounds with received levels 

exceeding 180 or 190 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. 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. These new criteria will address permanent threshold 
Summary of Pending Actions and Changes M-11

shift (PTS) from all underwater sound sources and temporary threshold shift (TTS) for both impulsive 

and continuous noise sources (behavioral responses).

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 

Programmatic EIS is not possible given the uncertainty that still remains on the final content of the new 

acoustic criteria.

However, if NMFS finalizes new criteria, BOEM will evaluate the criteria in the context of any 

site/permit-specific analysis under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and National Environmental 

Policy Act. NMFS will also apply any new criteria at this site/permit-specific level through any 

undertaken MMPA authorization process.

5. CETACEAN DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION MAPPING GROUP 

(CETMAP)

The Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Group (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. Navy. 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 release of the Draft Programmatic EIS and have not become available 

during the 18-month period following the close of the 90-day public comment period and the finalization 

of the Programmatic EIS (see http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/cetsound/). 

6. 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 as follows: (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 seabirds 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/

Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies/Current-Research.aspx). 

7. REFERENCES CITED

Federal Register. 2013a. 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). 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 September 10, 2013.

Federal Register. 2013b. 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. July 18, 2013. 

78 FR 138, pp. 43006-53054. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-18/pdf/

2013-17204.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2013.
M-12 Atlantic G&G Programmatic EIS

Federal Register. 2013c. 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.

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

October 10, 2013.
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.