National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

400

3.10 SEABIRDS, SHOREBIRDS AND COASTAL BIRDS, AND WATERFOWL

This section discusses the affected environment and environmental consequences that would result 

under each alternative for seabirds, shorebirds, coastal birds, and waterfowl in the action area.

3.10.1 Affected Environment

There are roughly 10,000 species of birds in the world (Barrowclough et al., 2016), 1,000 species of birds 

in the U.S., and 100 ESA-listed species of birds in states and territories adjoining the water bodies of the 

action area (ECOS, No Date-a). The groups of birds most relevant to the Proposed Action include seabirds, 

shorebirds, coastal birds, and waterfowl (from now on collectively referred to as “birds”), and ESA-listed 

species within these groups. Many of the birds found in the project area are also migratory and are 

protected under the MBTA) (see Section 3.3.4 for discussion of the MBTA). This section presents an 

overview of these functional groups, a discussion of avian acoustical capabilities, and a description of the 

distribution of bird species within the action area. It also identifies those bird species that are listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA.

3.10.1.1 Overview of Taxonomic and Functional Groups

Seabirds feed in marine environments where they plunge or dive under the surface to catch prey. They 

may spend much of their lives at sea foraging over pelagic habitat (open sea), often thousands of 

kilometers from their nesting grounds. Coastal birds are distinguished by their preference for coastal 

habitat and vary considerably in foraging and nesting behaviors. Shorebirds, a distinct taxonomic subset 

of coastal birds, use marine and/or freshwater edge habitat for feeding, breeding, and/or nesting. They 

largely forage from water’s edge through neritic zones (areas where sunlight reaches the sea floor), 

although specific foraging behaviors vary by species. Waterfowl are found in fresh water and salt water 

environments and spend much of their lives on the water’s surface and dive below to feed. Nearly all 

species covered in this evaluation are migratory, though their ranges from nesting to foraging sites vary 

from hundreds to thousands of kilometers. Ecological characteristics of these groups are summarized in 

Table 3.10-1. Birds are found in all regions of the action area, though different bird groups and species 

predominate in different regions and habitats.

Table 3.10-1. Ecological Characteristics of Functional and Taxonomic Bird Groups

Taxonomic 

Group

Common 

Species

Primary 

Habitat

Feeding 

Behavior

Common 

Forage / Prey

Nesting 

Behavior

Migratory 

Behavior

Seabirds Albatross, 

petrel, booby, 

gulls, terns, 

pelicans

Pelagic Surface 

feeding, pursuit 

diving, plunge 

diving

Baitfish, krill, 

squid

Large 

colonies, 

often on 

cliffs, small 

islands, or 

headlands

Migratory

Shorebirds Avocet, plover, 

sandpipers, 

snipe, 

oystercatcher, 

whimbrel, 

whippet

Coastal Shallow wading Small aquatic 

and terrestrial 

invertebrates

Solitary, 

shallow 

scrapes 

near bodies 

of water

Migratory

Waterfowl Bufflehead, 

eider, 

Coastal / 

Freshwater

Diving and 

dabbling 

Invertebrates, 

aquatic 

Solitary, 

groundMigratory
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

401

Taxonomic 

Group

Common 

Species

Primary 

Habitat

Feeding 

Behavior

Common 

Forage / Prey

Nesting 

Behavior

Migratory 

Behavior

harlequin, 

merganser, 

scoter

(specialized 

surface 

feeding)

insects, small 

fish, aquatic 

plants

nesting near 

bodies of 

water

3.10.1.2 Sound Production and Hearing

The mechanics of avian hearing are similar to those of reptiles and mammals, though the audible 

frequency range for any given species of bird is generally narrower than that of a given mammal. Birds 

are not as sensitive to the ends of their hearing range as mammals are. Mid-frequency bird hearing 

generally spans 1 to 5 kHz in air with highest sensitivity at about 2 to 3 kHz. Birds generally cannot perceive 

sound above 15 kHz (NSF and USGS, 2011).

Hearing ability and sensitivity of birds in underwater conditions is not well known. It is thought that avian 

hearing is generally adapted to in-air environments, though seabirds may be able to hear underwater. 

Underwater sound emitters have been documented to deter diving seabirds from gill nets when set to 

operate at 1.5 kHz (±1 kHz) at 120 dB re 1 μPa (NSF and USGS, 2011). 

Based on available data, this Final PEIS assumes that all birds have similar in-air hearing ranges (unless 

specifically noted otherwise in the literature) and that the birds’ ears are primarily used and adapted to 

above-water conditions, with limited hearing underwater.

3.10.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

The USFWS has listed a number of imperiled bird species, sub-species, and populations as either 

threatened or endangered under the federal ESA. A total of 22 ESA-listed bird species and one bird species 

(bald eagle - Haliaeetus leucocephalus) protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

potentially occur in the action area (Table 3.10-2). Descriptions of each along with summaries of their 

habitat, diet, and status are presented following the table.

Table 3.10-2. Federally Protected Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds,

and Waterfowl Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat

Seabirds

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened USFWS WCR Yes

Band-rumped stormpetrelOceanodroma castro Endangered USFWS PIR No

Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered USFWS AR, PIR, 

WCR

No

Hawaiian petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis Endangered USFWS PIR No

Newell's shearwater Puffinus auricularis newelli Threatened USFWS PIR No

California least tern Sternula antillarum browni Endangered USFWS WCR No

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Threatened USFWS GAR No
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

402

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat

Shorebirds and Coastal Birds

Red knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened USFWS GAR, SER No

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened USFWS GAR, SER Yes

Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus Threatened USFWS WCR Yes

Hawaiian coot Fulica americana alai Endangered USFWS PIR No

Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered USFWS GAR, SER Yes

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Least Concern USFWS All No

Hawaiian stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

knudseni

Endangered USFWS PIR No

Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened USFWS SER No

Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis Endangered USFWS AR No

Light-footed clapper 

rail

Rallus longirostris levipes Endangered USFWS WCR No

California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus Endangered USFWS WCR No

Waterfowl

Laysan duck Anas laysanensis Endangered USFWS PIR No

Hawaiian duck Anas wyvilliana Endangered USFWS PIR No

Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri Threatened USFWS AR Yes

Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri Threatened USFWS AR Yes

*SER = Southeast Region (includes Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Atlantic seaboard from North Carolina to 

Florida); WCR = West Coast Region (includes Washington, Oregon, and California); PIR = Pacific Islands Region 

(includes the Hawaiian, Marianas, and American Samoa archipelagos, Wake Island, and the Remote Pacific Islands).

3.10.1.3.1 Seabirds

3.10.1.3.1.1 Marbled Murrelet

The marbled murrelet (Figure 3.10-1) is a small seabird that forages for small fish and invertebrates in 

near-shore marine environments of the Pacific coast from California through Alaska. They prefer to nest 

in old growth forest interiors with little edge habitat and low fragmentation for breeding (USFWS, 2019).

Egg-laying and incubation typically occur from March to August, and nestlings are reared from their 

emergence through the September fledging period – the period of time in which hatchlings become 

physically capable of flight (Nelson and Hamer, 1995).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

403

Photo credit: USFWS

In 1992, the USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as threatened in California, Oregon, and Washington 

(ECOS, No Date-a). In 1996, critical habitat was designated in these three states, though the initial 16,000 

km2 designated (3.9 million ac) was revised slightly downward to 15,000 km2 (3.7 million ac) in 2011. 

Nesting habitat loss and fragmentation continue to threaten marbled murrelets, along with depredation 

(the killing of adult birds and offspring by natural predators), harmful algal blooms, oil spills, and reduction 

of prey species quality and quantity. There were approximately 23,260 marbled murrelets in California, 

Oregon, and Washington as of 2016 (USFWS, 2019).

3.10.1.3.1.2 Band-rumped Storm-petrel

Band-rumped storm-petrels are small seabirds about the size of a robin. Breeding populations in the 

eastern Atlantic are regular visitors to marine habitats as close as 50 km (31 mi) from the Gulf and Atlantic 

coasts of the U.S. Breeding populations in Japan and the Galapagos are also known to range in the Pacific. 

The Hawai’i DPS is the only current breeding population in the U.S. (Slotterback, 2002). The birds seem to 

prefer steep cliff crevices and lava flows for mating and nesting and spend the remainder of their time at 

sea (American Bird Conservancy, No Date). Their primary prey are fish and squid caught at or just below 

the ocean surface (Slotterback, 2002). This DPS typically lays eggs between May and June and nestlings 

fledge in October (Hawaii DLNR, 2015a)

Hawaiian band-rumpled storm-petrel populations were reduced primarily by depredation by introduced 

species. Collisions with manmade structures, particularly associated with light pollution leading to 

disorientation, were also recognized as threats to the population (75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010). In 

2016, the Hawai’i DPS of the band-rumped storm-petrel was listed as endangered in Hawai’i. No critical 

habitat has been designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a).

3.10.1.3.1.3 Short-tailed Albatross

The short-tailed albatross (Figure 3.10-2) is found in Hawai’i, Alaska, California, Washington, and Oregon. 

The bird is known to breed only on two remote islands of Japan and they stay close to this area during 

nesting, breeding, and rearing young; nesting occurs from late-October to mid-June. During the nonbreeding seasons, these birds range across the temperate and subarctic Pacific and use areas of 

upwellings and high productivity and, less frequently, use waters between 3,000 and 6,000 m (10,000 –

20,000 ft) in depth not near upwellings. There is little information on the diet of the short-tailed albatross, 

though squids, crustaceans, and fishes all seem to be important prey. The birds are also known to follow 

commercial fishing vessels for feeding purposes (USFWS, 2009a).

Figure 3.10-1. Marbled Murrelet
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

404

Photo credit: USFWS

In 1970, the short-tailed albatross was listed as an endangered foreign species (an endangered species 

without primary habitat within the U.S.), though this listing was revised in 2000 to endangered throughout 

its range. As of 2014, the status of the short-tailed albatross appeared to be improving, though limited 

breeding distribution continues to be a risk for the species (USFWS, 2014f). No critical habitat has been 

designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a). 

3.10.1.3.1.4 Hawaiian Petrel

The Hawaiian petrel, also known as the dark-rumped petrel, is a gadfly petrel that nests only in Hawai’i. It 

nests in burrows in high and difficult terrain with good vegetative cover (USFWS, 1983). Hawaiian petrels 

typically lay eggs in May/June, and most hatchlings fledge by December (Hawaii DLNR, 2015b). The marine 

range of the Hawaiian petrel is thought to extend from approximately 10° south to 20° north, expanding 

to 25° north in spring and up to 50° north in the southern Gulf of Alaska in July and August. This range 

overlaps with that of the Galapagos petrel and the two species are indistinguishable from each other when 

observed at sea. The Hawaiian petrel ranges east to areas off the coast of the western continental U.S. 

and Mexico, and has been observed west as far as the Philippines and Japan, though these sightings are 

very rare. When encountered at sea and not feeding, the Hawaiian petrel is generally solitary, though they 

join flocks comprising a mix of species when feeding. The bodies of gadfly petrels are less suited to diving 

than other petrels, and they are thought to feed on the water surface by seizing prey and by scavenging. 

Diet studies on Maui indicated that the Hawaiian petrel feeds primarily on squid, but also on fish and 

crustaceans (Simons and Hodges, 1998).

Following severe population declines attributed to predation and habitat degradation by introduced 

species, the Hawaiian petrel was listed as endangered in 1967 (USFWS, 1983). These pressures continue 

to threaten the species and, as of 2017, the population on Kauai was estimated to have decreased by 78 

percent since the 1990s (USFWS, 2017b). No critical habitat has been designated for the species (ECOS, 

No Date-a).

3.10.1.3.1.5 Newell's Shearwater

The Newell’s shearwater (previously known as the Newell’s Manx shearwater) is a threatened species 

native to Hawai’i. They breed and nest only on the main Islands of Hawai’i, with 30 to 40 known breeding 

Figure 3.10-2. Male Short-tailed Albatross 

Shelters a Chick
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

405

sites. Additional breeding sites are also expected to exist based on the population size of Newell’s 

shearwater, but the location and number of these additional sites are not currently known. Newell’s 

shearwaters burrow into the ground or nest in rocky crevices at high elevations or on coastal cliffs. In 

April, they gather at breeding colonies and lay eggs in May and June, with chicks generally fledging in 

October. During non-breeding nesting periods, the Newell’s shearwater is highly pelagic, using tropical 

and subtropical waters of depths greater than 2,000 m (6,500 ft). They range from the Hawaiian Islands 

eastward to about 120° west latitude, and from the equator to about 22° north longitude. The birds feed 

on fish and squid by pursuit-plunging to depths up to 50 m (164 ft) (Ainley et al., 2019).

In 1975, the Newell’s shearwater was listed as threatened wherever found. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a). Depredation by introduced species, collisions with 

powerlines, light pollution leading to collision deaths among juveniles, and changes to breeding habitats 

by invasive plants continue to threaten the species. Populations at sea have been estimated to range from 

18,000 to 37,000 individuals (USFWS, 2016b). 

3.10.1.3.1.6 California Least Tern

The California least tern, previously classified in the genus Sterna, is a migratory bird that is native to 

California and Mexico, ranging from San Francisco in the north through Baja California in the south, though 

generally concentrated in Los Angeles County, Orange County, and San Diego County. They generally nest 

from April through August on open beaches in colonies of about 25 pairs. California least terns migrate 

south along the Pacific coast to wintering locations in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama. They forage mainly 

in near-shore ocean waters and shallow estuaries and lagoons (USFWS, 2006a). The California least tern’s 

diet likely consists of small fish (Thompson et al., 1997).

In 1970, the California least tern was listed as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a). Populations as of 2005 were estimated to be 7,100 breeding 

pairs. The pressures on nesting habitat that led to the California least tern’s decline were still present but 

somewhat managed by 2006 (USFWS, 2006a). 

3.10.1.3.1.7 Roseate Tern

The roseate tern is an exclusively marine, primarily plunge-feeding seabird distributed around the tropics 

and subtropics of the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and temperate latitudes of the North 

Atlantic. The Caribbean roseate tern (Figure 3.10-3) population is listed as threatened and the Northeast 

roseate tern population, sometimes called the North Atlantic roseate tern, is listed as endangered. It 

should be noted that ‘northeast’ in this sense refers to the northeast of the continent, not the northeast 

of the Atlantic Ocean. Discussion of the roseate tern’s ecology will focus on these populations. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

406

Photo credit: USFWS

The roseate tern forages for small, schooling fish over reefs and sandbars or in pelagic habitats in 

association with marine predators that bring fish to the surface. The Northeast population prefers sand 

lance, and the Caribbean population prefers dwarf herring and anchovies. The Northeast population 

breeds in colonies from New York through Nova Scotia, nesting with common terns on nearshore islands, 

barrier islands, and rarely on salt marsh islands from May to early-September (ECOS, No Date-a). They 

prefer nesting habitat with dense cover. The Caribbean population on the other hand, nests in more open 

areas on rocky to sandy substrates on islands and islets around Cuba, the Florida Keys, the Bahamas, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Lesser Antilles beginning in early-May and extending through July. 

Roseate terns from these populations are generally confined to South America during the winter. Both 

populations migrate offshore (Nisbet et al., 2014).

In 1987, the roseate tern was listed as threatened in the western hemisphere and adjacent oceans where 

not listed as endangered, and endangered in the U.S. on the Atlantic coast from North Carolina northward. 

No critical habitat has been designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a). Degradation of habitat is the 

most urgent threat to the Northeast population, where populations had declined from about 4,000 

nesting pairs in 2000 to around 3,000 nesting pairs as of 2010. Depredation, disease, and human 

disturbances are the most substantial threats to the Caribbean population (ECOS, No Date-a), which were 

estimated to a maximum of about 7,000 pairs in 2012 (Nisbet et al., 2014). 

3.10.1.3.2 Shorebirds and Coastal Birds

3.10.1.3.2.1 Red Knot

The rufa red knot (Figure 3.10-4) is a sandpiper shorebird and one of three subspecies of red knots (Baker 

et al., 2013). Rufa red knots can be found along the Atlantic, Gulf, Caribbean, and Great Lakes coasts of 

the action area (ECOS, No Date-a). The birds breed in the Arctic beginning in late-May, and the highly 

precocial (hatchlings requiring lower levels of parental care, e.g., ducklings or goslings) fledge during July 

(Niles et al., 2008). Red knots overwinter in South America, the Caribbean, and the Gulf coasts of the U.S. 

and Mexico (USFWS, No Date-a). During migration, knots generally prefer sandy coastal habitats near tidal 

inlets at the mouths of bays and estuaries. They also use sandy beaches, rocky beaches, mudflats, 

mangroves, salt marshes, and intertidal rocky areas, particularly those with high availability of bivalves 

and crustaceans (Baker et al., 2013). Rufa red knots eat a variety of invertebrates such as bivalves, snails, 

crustaceans, marine worms, and horseshoe crab eggs (USFWS, No Date-a). 

Figure 3.10-3. Caribbean 

Roseate Tern
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

407

Photo credit: USFWS

Prior to the early 20th century, red knot populations were heavily and primarily impacted by hunting.

After removal of hunting pressures with the passage of the MBTA in 1918, accelerated coastal 

development and reduction of horseshoe crab populations continued to impact red knot populations. This 

has resulted in drastic population reductions such as those in the Delaware Bay, where populations fell by 

75 percent from the 1980s to 2000s (USFWS, No Date-a). In 2015, the red knot was listed as threatened 

wherever found. No critical habitat rules have been published (ECOS, No Date-a). USFWS identifies current 

threats to the rufa red knot as: “sea level rise; coastal development; shoreline stabilization; dredging; 

reduced food availability at stopover areas; disturbance by vehicles, people, dogs, aircraft, and boats; and 

climate change” (USFWS, No Date-a).

3.10.1.3.2.2 Piping Plover

The piping plover (Figure 3.10-5) is a shorebird that breeds and spends the summer months along the 

Atlantic coast from North Carolina through Newfoundland and much of the Great Lakes. During this part 

of the year, these plovers generally inhabit and nest on wide, sandy-to-gravelly beaches with little

vegetation on barrier islands, ocean fronts, bays, sand bars, spoil islands, tidal creeks, and tidal marshes. 

In freshwater systems they can be found along the shores of lakes, rivers, ponds, and artificial water 

bodies, and often nest in or near colonies of terns.

Photo credit: USFWS

Figure 3.10-4. Red Knot

with Leg Tag

Figure 3.10-5. Piping Plover
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

408

During migration piping plovers prefer beaches and alkali flats (dried lake beds adjacent to coasts 

containing high salt concentrations). During non-breeding winter months, piping plovers can be found at 

beaches, mudflats, and sandflats along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina to Florida, along the Gulf 

Coast from Florida through the Yucatan peninsula, as well as on the Caribbean coast of the Yucatan. They 

frequently use bays, lagoons, and inlets. The birds generally prefer feeding at sand flats, algal flats and 

mudflats, within 15 m (50 ft) of the shoreline, and mainly within 5 m (16 ft) of the edge of water. They 

feed on marine worms, various life-stages of insects, terrestrial invertebrates, marine and freshwater

benthic invertebrates, crustaceans, and mollusks (Elliott-Smith and Haig, 2004).

In 1985, the piping plover was listed as threatened wherever found, except where listed as endangered 

in the Great Lakes-Big Rivers region, that is the Great Lakes and their watersheds. Critical habitat was 

designated in 2001 for the Great Lakes Breeding Population, followed by multiple additional designations 

and revisions for other populations over subsequent years. Most recently critical habitat for wintering 

populations in Texas were revised in 2009. Designated areas of critical habitat relevant to the action area 

include some shorelines along the Great Lakes, Gulf coast, and Atlantic coast from Florida through North 

Carolina (ECOS, No Date-a). Coast and shore habitat loss and competition from recreational uses 

represent the greatest threats to the species (USFWS, 2009b). 

3.10.1.3.2.3 Western Snowy Plover 

Western snowy plovers (Figure 3.10-6) can be found residing year-round and migrating along the west

coast of the continental U.S. and Mexico. They inhabit and nest on the ground of unvegetated and sparsely 

vegetated beaches and shores of alkali lakes; the nesting season occurs from March to September (Center 

for Biological Diversity, No Date). Western snowy plovers feed on terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates in 

freshwater, marine, and brackish environments. They feed on the sand surface and up to 2 cm (1 in) below 

surface, normally foraging around the mean high-water line (Page et al., 2009).

Photo credit: USFWS

In 1993, the Pacific population of the western snowy plover was listed as threatened in California, Oregon, 

Washington, and areas of Mexico within 80 km (50 mi) of the Pacific coast. Critical habitat was designated 

in 1995 and revised as recently as 2012. There are currently multiple, discrete areas of designated critical 

habitat along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington (ECOS, No Date-a). Current threats to the 

western snowy plover include habitat loss and fragmentation and human-caused disturbance, injury, and 

kills (USFWS, 2006b).

Figure 3.10-6. Western Snowy 

Plover
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

409

3.10.1.3.2.4 Hawaiian Coot

Hawaiian coots are wetland birds endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. Although they are generally found in 

freshwater habitats, coots can also be found on estuaries and calm seas within reefs. Hawaiian coots are 

believed to maintain similar diets to American coots, that is, plants, algae, aquatic invertebrates, and small 

aquatic vertebrates in generally freshwater environments, but sometimes in saline environments. The 

Hawaiian coot is non-migratory and breeds and nests year-round (Pratt and Brisbin, 2002). 

In 1970, the Hawaiian coot was listed as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a). The Hawaiian coot continues to face pressure from the 

same forces that led to its decline: depredation by introduced species and loss and degradation of wetland 

habitat. Beyond direct impacts from human use, the coastal wetlands used by the coots are vulnerable to 

sea level rise (USFWS, 2010a).

3.10.1.3.2.5 Whooping Crane

Whooping cranes (Figure 3.10-7) can be found in the action area along portions of the Great Lakes, Gulf 

coast, and a small area of the Florida Atlantic coast (ECOS, No Date-a). There are only four populations of 

whooping cranes, one of them naturally occurring and the remainder introduced. Whooping cranes 

generally feed in croplands and roost in wetlands during migration and use estuarine marshes, shallow 

bays, and tidal flats while overwintering in the Gulf. Some populations winter in wetlands, riverine 

systems, and flooded agricultural land. Prior to the decline of the species, whooping crane were known 

to winter along the east coast from New Jersey south. Whooping cranes return to Canadian nesting 

grounds from April to September to lay/incubate eggs and rear hatchlings (USFWS, No Date-b). When 

feeding in saltwater environments, whooping cranes primarily consume crabs and clams at depths up to 

20 cm (8 in). When feeding in freshwater environments, the cranes generally feed on the margins of 

wetlands, agricultural fields, pastures, or savannah at the same depth as in saltwater environments 

(Urbanek and Lewis, 2015). 

Photo credit: USFWS

In 1967, the whooping crane was listed as endangered wherever found, except for reintroduced 

populations listed as “experimental population, non-essential”. Critical habitat was designated for the 

whooping crane in 1978, including a small area along the Gulf coast northeast of Corpus Christi, Texas 

(ECOS, No Date-a). Pressures that led to the decline of whooping crane, such as settlement and conversion 

of habitat in prairie pothole regions, wetlands, and coastal wetland wintering grounds, continue to 

Figure 3.10-7. Whooping Crane 

with Chick
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

410

threaten the species. Threats from sea level rise, temperature changes affecting feed species, and 

potential salinity changes are also anticipated at the coastal wetland wintering areas. Despite these 

pressures, populations were reported as growing steadily as of 2012 (USFWS, 2012c).

3.10.1.3.2.6 Bald Eagle

Bald eagles are large, predominantly coastal raptors endemic to North America and range throughout the 

entire continental U.S. They live near rivers, lakes, marshes, estuaries, and coastlines where they feed 

primarily on fish, but also waterfowl, rabbits, turtles, snakes, and other small animals. Bald eagles nest in 

the tops of trees and build nests reaching up to 3 m (10 ft) wide and weighing half a ton (USFWS, 2021b).

Nesting season is dependent on the location of the individual but ranges approximately 5 months from 

initial nest building to fledging. Individual birds can be migratory depending on their location, but often 

return to breed within 160 km (100 mi) of where they were originally raised. 

When the U.S. adopted the bald eagle as a national symbol in 1782, the country was thought to contain 

at least 100,000 bald eagle nests (USFWS, 2021b). By 1940, bald eagle populations had plummeted due 

to declines in fish and waterfowl stocks and targeted shooting by landowners fearing livestock losses. In 

response, Congress passed the Bald Eagle Protection Act – which prohibits the take, possession, sale, 

purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald eagle or bald 

eagle part, alive or dead (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22) – in order to preserve the culturally significant birds, 

which was later amended to include golden eagles. Bald eagle populations continued to decline over the 

next 20 years due to the widespread use of the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), which 

thinned bald eagle eggshells and drastically reduced nesting success. By 1963, only 417 nesting pairs of 

bald eagles remained in the lower 48 states. Bald eagles were federally listed as endangered in 1967 and 

only began to recover after the 1972 ban of DDT. By 1995, the species was upgraded to threatened status 

in the lower 48 states and in 2006 bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list. Today, 

bald eagles are considered a species of least concern and receive protections only under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

3.10.1.3.2.7 Hawaiian Stilt

Hawaiian stilts are wading birds endemic to Hawai’i and are a subspecies of the North American stilt 

(ECOS, No Date-a). They can be found on six of the eight main islands, occupying lowland coastal wetlands 

and making seasonal movements among islands. Hawaiian stilts select nest sites on exposed mudflats 

between March and August (Hawaii DLNR, 2015c). They typically feed on invertebrates and fish in fresh 

and brackish or saline water up to about 13 cm (5 in) deep, using pecking, snatching, sweeping, and 

plunging methods (Robinson et al., 1999).

Hunting pressure, wetland habitat loss, and depredation by introduced species reduced Hawaiian stilt 

populations to a low of about 200 birds in the 1940s (Robinson et al., 1999). In 1970, the Hawaiian stilt 

was listed as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has been designated for the species (ECOS, 

No Date-a). The Hawaiian stilt continues to face pressure from depredation by introduced species and loss 

and degradation of wetland habitat. Beyond direct impacts from human use, the coastal wetlands used 

by the stilts are vulnerable to sea level rise (USFWS, 2010b).

3.10.1.3.2.8 Wood Stork

Wood storks (Figure 3.10-8) are wading birds inhabiting the southeast of the U.S., including areas of the 

Gulf and Atlantic coasts (ECOS, No Date-a). Wood storks generally feed in freshwater wetlands of less than 

50 cm (20 in) in depth. In coastal Georgia estuaries, the storks sometimes feed in tidal creeks and, less 

often, tidal pools. In Florida, the storks sometimes feed in estuarine forested swamps. Wood storks roost 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

411

in trees over water. In their overwintering range, they use freshwater and saltwater wetlands. Wood 

storks nest in large colonies between October and June, depending on location (FWC, No Date). The birds 

are generally quiet, apart from some courtship and mating sounds and begging by nestlings, which can 

become loud enough in colonies to be heard from a distance (Coulter et al., 1999).

Photo credit: USFWS

Because the storks rely on a specialized feeding strategy requiring wetlands that go through seasonal lowwater periods, they are very susceptible to habitat loss. It is estimated that there was a 75 percent 

reduction in wood stork populations from the 1930s to the 1970s, primarily because of impacts to such 

habitat. In 1984, the wood stork duck was listed as threatened in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina. No critical habitat has been designated for the species (ECOS, No Datea).

3.10.1.3.2.9 Eskimo Curlew

The Eskimo curlew (Figure 3.10-9) is a shorebird that is extremely rare or extinct, with an estimated 

population size of less than 50 individuals (USFWS, 2016c). The Eskimo curlew’s historical range was from 

Alaska to Chile, with southward migration intersecting the action area over the northwest Atlantic coast 

and potentially Great Lakes and northward migration over the Gulf coast. Southward movements would 

be made from July through October, and northward movements from March through April. The Eskimo 

curlew’s diet is thought to include insects, marine invertebrates, and berries of particular shrubs such as 

blueberries, crowberry, and bearberry (Gill et al., 1998).

Figure 3.10-8. A Lone Wood Stork

Wades at Water’s Edge
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

412

Photo credit: USFWS

Hunting, destruction of spring migration habitat, and extinction of at least one important insect prey 

species are thought to have led to the decline of the Eskimo curlew. In 1967, the Eskimo curlew was listed 

as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has been designated for the species (ECOS, No Datea).

3.10.1.3.2.10 Light-footed Clapper Rail

The light-footed clapper rail is a marsh bird endemic to California that now lives from Santa Barbara 

southward in coastal marshes, lagoons, and their maritime surroundings. The birds forage with the 

movement of tides in mudflats and shallow water adjacent to vegetated cover. They maintain an 

omnivorous diet that relies heavily on invertebrates such as insects, snails, crabs, crayfish, isopods, and 

decapods. Nests are located in dense vegetation such as cordgrass or pickleweed just above tidal 

inundation. Individuals generally remain in the vicinity of their home marshes (USFWS, 2009c). Nesting 

usually begins in March, and late nests hatch by August (USFWS, 2009c).

In 1970, the light-footed clapper rail was listed as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has 

been designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a). As of 2007, there were 443 known nesting pairs, 

though this number declined the following year (USFWS, 2009c).

3.10.1.3.2.11 California Clapper Rail

The California clapper rail is a marsh bird endemic to California that currently inhabits only the tidal salt 

and brackish marshes around San Francisco Bay. Historically it may have ranged from Morro Bay in the 

south to Humboldt Bay in the north. California clapper rails are omnivorous, feeding on mussels, spiders, 

clams, crabs, worms, and even rodents and small birds. They nest from mid-March to August in woven 

platforms above high tide levels in areas with sufficient invertebrate prey abundance and escape routes 

from predators (USFWS, 2013). 

In 1970, the California clapper rail was listed as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a). As of 2008, California rails were estimated to number at 

least 1,425 birds. Lack of habitat continues to limit the species’ recovery (USFWS, 2013). 

Figure 3.10-9. Painting of an Eskimo Curlew by 

Louis Agassiz Fuertes (1874-1927)
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

413

3.10.1.3.3 Waterfowl

3.10.1.3.3.1 Laysan Duck

The Laysan duck is endemic to Laysan Island, Hawaii. Laysan Island is approximately 3 km by 1.5 km (2 mi 

by 1 mi) with a maximum elevation of approximately 12 m (40 f) above sea level. A defining feature of the 

island is a central saltwater lake that measures approximately 1.6 km by 0.5 km (1 mi by 0.3 mi) and a 

depth of no more than 10 m (33 ft). Laysan ducks feed on macroinvertebrates in shallow waters along the 

shores of the lake and in the surrounding sands and undergrowth (Moulton and Marshall, 1996). The birds 

nest around 350 m (1148 ft) upland of the lake from April through July, but the exact timing of nesting 

and reproduction is flexible in response to local habitat conditions (USFWS, No Date-c).

In 1967, the Laysan duck was listed as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the species (ECOS, No Date-a).

3.10.1.3.3.2 Hawaiian Duck

The Hawaiian duck is known locally as “koloa” and is a close relative of the mallard. Dependent on 

freshwater wetland habitat, the ducks were historically distributed on most of the main Hawaiian Islands 

except the drier islands of Lana’i and Kaho’olawe. Destruction of wetland habitat led to a decline of 

Hawaiian duck populations. Coastal brackish water, estuaries, and saline habitat are not frequently used

by the ducks, apart from populations on Kaua’i observed using freshwater upwellings in coastal brackish 

marshes (Engilis et al., 2002). The species’ nesting biology is poorly known, but most pairs tend to nest in 

the upper Alaka’I swamp on Kau’ai. Nesting can occur year-round, but most nesting activity occurs 

between January and May (Hawaii DLNR, 2015d).

In 1967, the species was listed as endangered wherever found. No critical habitat has been designated 

(ECOS, No Date-a). The species currently faces threats from hybridization with non-native mallard 

populations (Engilis et al., 2002).

3.10.1.3.3.3 Steller’s Eider

Steller’s eider (Figure 3.10-10) is the smallest of the four species of eider. Its range is in northern latitudes 

only. The birds nest near freshwater ponds as the spring sea ice begins to break, but return to shallow 

marine habitats after breeding. While in marine habitats, Steller’s eiders prefer to feed by diving for 

mollusks and crustaceans, but also eat worms, echinoderms, small fish, gastropods and brachiopods 

(Fredrickson, 2001). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

414

Photo credit: USFWS

The Alaska breeding population of the Steller’s Eider was listed as threatened in 1997, and in 2001 critical 

habitat was designated (ECOS, No Date-a). The five designated units were located at Yukon-Kuskokwim 

Delta, Kuskokwim Shoals, Seal Islands, Izembek Lagoon, and Nelson Lagoon, which includes Port Moller 

and Herendeen Bay. Marine environments of greater than 9 m (30 ft) in depth were specifically excluded 

from the critical habitat regardless of published boundaries (66 FR 8850, February 2, 2001).

3.10.1.3.3.4 Spectacled Eider

Similar to Steller’s eider, distribution of the spectacled eider (Figure 3.10-11) is limited to Alaska and 

Russia and the birds inhabit marine environments apart from breeding and nesting activities near tundra 

ponds. Nesting occurs in the spring season, and breeding females remain with their young on the nesting 

grounds until early September (ECOS, No Date-a). Spectacled eiders feed mainly on clams and benthic 

invertebrates in marine habitat and insects and plant materials in freshwater habitat (Peterson et al., 

2000). 

Photo credit: USFWS

Populations of spectacled eiders fell by 96 percent from the 1970s to 1992. In 1993, they were listed as 

threatened wherever found. In 2001, critical habitat for the spectacled eider was designated on the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, in Norton Sound, Ledyard Bay, and the Bering Sea between St. Lawrence and St. 

Matthew Islands (66 FR 9146, February 6, 2001).

Figure 3.10-10. Steller’s 

Eider Male and Female

Figure 3.10-11. Spectacled Eider
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

415

3.10.1.4 Regional Distribution

General bird assemblages are discussed in Section 3.10.1.1. This section summarizes region-specific ESAlisted species and critical habitat. It is important to note that not all ESA-listed bird species have 

designated critical habitat. The majority of critical habitat for birds is located within the Alaska and West 

Coast Regions.

3.10.1.4.1 Greater Atlantic Region

Four ESA-listed bird species (roseate tern, red knot, piping plover, and whooping crane) occur in the 

Greater Atlantic Region, as indicated in Table 3.10-2. There is no designated critical habitat for these 

species in this region.

3.10.1.4.2 Southeast Region

Four ESA-listed birds (red knot, whooping crane, wood stork, and piping plover) occur in the Southeast 

Region, as indicated in Table 3.10-2. Whooping cranes and piping plovers also have designated critical 

habitat in the region as shown in Figure 3.10-12.

Sources: NMFS, No Date-a; ECOS, No Date-b

Figure 3.10-12. Designated Critical Habitat in the Southeast Region
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

416

3.10.1.4.3 West Coast Region

Six ESA-listed bird species (marbled murrelet, short-tailed albatross, California least tern, western snowy 

plover, light-footed clapper rail, and California clapper rail) occur in the West Coast Region, as indicated 

in Table 3.10-2. Marbled murrelet and western snowy plover have designated critical habitat in the region 

as shown in Figure 3.10-13.

Sources: NMFS, No Date-a; ECOS, No Date-b

Figure 3.10-13. Designated Critical Habitat in the West Coast Region

3.10.1.4.4 Alaska Region

Four ESA-listed birds (short-tailed albatross, Eskimo curlew, Steller’s eider, and spectacled eider) occur in 

the Alaska Region, as indicated in Table 3.10-2. Steller’s eider and spectacled eider have designated critical 

habitat in the region, as shown in Figure 3.10-14.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

417

Sources: NMFS, No Date-a; ECOS, No Date-b

Figure 3.10-14. Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region

3.10.1.4.5 Pacific Islands Region

Eight ESA-listed birds (band-rumped storm petrel, short-tailed albatross, Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s 

shearwater, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian Stilt, Laysan duck, and Hawaiian duck) occur in the Pacific Islands 

Region, as indicated in Table 3.10-2. None of these species have designated critical habitat in the region. 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences for Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal 

Birds, and Waterfowl

This section discusses potential impacts to seabirds, shorebirds and coastal birds, and waterfowl and their 

associated habitat, including designated critical habitat, from NOS activities associated with Alternatives

A, B, and C. Activities described in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.13 that occur on NOS projects and that could 

be expected to impact birds and their habitat in the action area include crewed vessel operations, 

anchoring, ROV and autonomous vehicle operations, use of echo sounders, use of ADCPs, use of acoustic 

communication systems, use of sound speed data collection equipment, operation of drop/towed 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

418

cameras and video systems, collection of bottom grab samples, tide gauge installation, maintenance, and 

removal, GPS reference station installation, and SCUBA operations.

Given the ecological concordance between bird groups, impacts that would affect all groups are hereafter 

referred to as impacts on birds. Specific impacts based on behavior or habitat of an individual group or 

species are explicitly stated. Potential impacts could occur in all of the geographic regions described in 

Section 2.3.1. ESA-listed endangered and threatened species are included in the discussion along with 

non-listed species because the potential impact mechanisms are the same. 

3.10.2.1 Methodology

The factors from NOS activities that could impact birds and their habitat, including ESA-listed species and 

designated critical habitat, in the action area include: (1) active underwater acoustic sources (e.g., echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems); (2) vessel and equipment sound (e.g., from 

crewed vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles); (3) aircraft sound (e.g., from installing, maintaining, and 

removing remote tide gauges and GPS reference stations), (4) water column disruption and underwater 

activities (e.g., from ROVs and autonomous vehicles; project equipment; anchors; and SCUBA divers); (5) 

vessel presence and movement (e.g., from crewed vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles); (6) 

accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste into surrounding waters (e.g., from vessel 

operations); and (7) onshore activities (e.g., installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and 

GPS reference stations). These potential impact causing factors and their associated impacts on birds and

their habitat are discussed below. Note that use of the term “sea floor” in the analysis below also includes 

lake and river bottoms where NOS activities could occur.

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, significance criteria were developed for each resource analyzed to provide 

a structured framework for assessing impacts from the alternatives and the significance of the impacts.

The significance criteria for birds and bird habitat are shown in Table 3.10-3.

Table 3.10-3. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to

Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts to birds would be limited to temporary (lasting several 

hours) behavioral disturbances to individuals located within the 

project area. No mortality or debilitating injury to any individual 

bird would occur. There would be no displacement of birds from 

preferred breeding and feeding areas, nest sites, nursery grounds, 

or migratory routes. Impacts on bird habitat would be temporary 

(e.g., temporary displacement of finfish prey) with no lasting 

damage or alteration. Insignificant

Minor

Impacts to birds would be temporary or short-term (lasting 

several days to several weeks) and within the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, habitats, and the natural 

processes sustaining them. This could include non-lifethreatening injury to individual birds and small disruptions of 

time-sensitive behaviors such as breeding. Displacement of birds 

from preferred breeding and feeding areas, nursery grounds, or 

migratory routes would be short-term and limited to the project 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

419

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

area. Any resulting increased competition, additional energy 

expenditure, or loss of young would not affect overall bird 

population numbers or demographic structure. Impacts on 

habitat (e.g., short-term displacement of finfish prey, increased 

turbidity, trampled vegetation) would be easily recoverable with 

no long-term or permanent damage or alteration. 

Moderate

Impacts to birds would be short-term or long-term (lasting several 

months or longer) and outside the natural range of variability of 

species’ populations, habitats, and the natural processes 

sustaining them. This could include debilitating injury or mortality 

and disruptions of time-sensitive behaviors such as breeding. 

Behavioral responses and displacement would be expected from 

individuals within the project area, its immediate surroundings, 

or beyond. Long-term displacement of individuals from preferred 

breeding and feeding areas, nursery grounds, or migratory routes 

would occur. Resulting increased competition and energy 

expenditure would cause losses of breeding or egg-bearing adults 

and chicks at large enough scales to negatively impact overall bird 

population numbers or demographic structure but would not 

threaten the continued existence of any species. Habitat would 

be damaged or altered potentially over the long term but would 

continue to support dependent species. 

Major

Impacts to birds would be short-term or long-term and well 

outside the natural range of variability of species’ populations, 

habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. This could 

include extensive (i.e., affecting a large proportion of the local 

population), life-threatening, or debilitating injury and mortality 

and substantial disruption of time-sensitive behaviors such as 

breeding. Displacement of birds from preferred breeding or 

feeding areas, nursery grounds, or migratory routes would occur 

within project areas, their immediate surroundings, and beyond. 

Behavioral disruptions and displacement would result in the loss 

of breeding and egg-bearing adults and chicks due to increased 

competition or energy expenditure at scales large enough to 

affect overall bird population numbers or demographic structure. 

Impacts would also be considered major if they threatened the 

continued existence of any bird species. Full recovery of bird 

populations would not be expected to occur in a reasonable time. 

Habitat would be degraded over the long-term or permanently 

such that it would no longer be able to support dependent 

populations of birds. 

Significant
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

420

3.10.2.2 Alternative A: No Action - Conduct Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Impacts of Alternative A are discussed below by impact causing factors for seabirds, shorebirds and coastal 

birds, waterfowl, and their associated habitat. Under Alternative A, NOS survey effort would continue to 

cover a total of 2,647,958 nm (4,904,017 km) across all five regions over the five-year period. Although 

the survey effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see Table 3.4-4), approximately 47 percent of 

the total nautical miles surveyed over the five-year period would continue to be in the Southeast Region. 

The survey effort in each of the other four regions would continue to be approximately 10 percent of the 

total survey effort. Slightly greater impacts may continue to occur in the Alaska Region, which contains 

approximately 18 percent of the total survey effort. Additionally, survey effort in the Great Lakes would 

average 2,917 nm (5,402 km), as compared to the annual average survey effort of 529,592 nm (980,803 

km) for the remainder of the action area. In general, it is expected that level of effort and overall impacts 

trend together (i.e., greater impacts where the survey effort is higher), but there are other factors, such 

as location of surveys, sound production and hearing frequency of birds, and population density of birds, 

that add nuance to this trend.

The analysis of impacts on birds considers all of the impact causing factors introduced above and their 

impacts on birds and bird habitat. All regions in the action area include several ESA-listed species, and all 

regions, other than Pacific Islands Region, include designated critical habitat. The Pacific Islands Region

contains the greatest number of ESA-listed species and the Alaska and West Coast Regions contain the 

most designated critical habitat (see Table 3.10-2). 

3.10.2.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

Active acoustic sources used in underwater surveying, including echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic 

communication systems, are a cause of potential impact on birds due to their propagation of underwater 

sound. The acoustic signals used in NOS active surveying range from 0.5 to 1200 kHz; specific 

characteristics of each activity are detailed in Section 2.4. Birds have a documented hearing range of 

around 100 Hz to 10 kHz in air (Dooling and Popper, 2000), but it is unclear whether this range is 

comparable underwater. The limited data available suggest that the range of bird hearing may shift to 

lower frequencies in water (Dooling and Therrien, 2012), which may allow birds to hear low and midfrequency underwater acoustic sources (Navy, 2017b). However, bird hearing is adapted for airborne 

sound, and there is no evidence that underwater sound is used by birds ecologically. 

Surface-diving birds (e.g., cormorants, murres, murrelets, puffins, auklets, guillemots) and plunge-diving 

birds (e.g., brown pelicans, terns, boobies, gannets) – including ESA-listed marbled murrelets, bandrumped storm petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, Hawaiian petrels, Newell’s shearwaters, California least 

terns, roseate terns, Steller’s eiders, and spectacled eiders – may be more susceptible to temporary 

underwater acoustic disturbance than other bird species due to their foraging behavior. Many diving bird 

species stay underwater for up to several minutes while foraging and reach depths of 15–168 m (50–550 

ft) (Alderfer, 2003; Durant et al., 2003; Jones, 2001; Lin, 2002; Ronconi, 2001). While underwater, sound

from echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems could temporarily disrupt foraging 

activity of diving birds in their immediate vicinity. However, diving birds have adaptations to protect the 

middle ear and tympanum from pressure changes during diving, and they have other structural protective 

hearing adaptations for in-air sound that may also serve to protect underwater hearing (Dooling and

Therrien, 2012; Hetherington, 2008). Because of these adaptations and the relatively short time period 

diving birds spend underwater, the likelihood of a diving bird experiencing an underwater exposure from 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

421

sound emitted by echo sounder, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems that could result in an 

impact on hearing is considered low. Diving birds would also be able to surface shortly after exposure to 

sounds from underwater acoustic sources, limiting their exposure time and potential impacts. 

Furthermore, only diving birds within several meters of underwater acoustic sources would be 

temporarily exposed to active acoustic sources. Any increased foraging effort, competition, or energy 

expenditure resulting from displacement during project operations is not expected to substantially affect

individuals or the population of birds as a whole. Non-diving birds would not be affected by underwater 

active acoustic sources.

Active acoustic sources could affect bird habitat, including designated critical habitat, by displacing finfish 

prey species from the project area during project operations. As discussed in Section 3.7, active acoustic 

sources could elicit pathological and behavioral effects on fish and could displace them from the 

immediate project area during NOS activities. However, given the relatively small project area and short 

duration of acoustic surveys, finfish prey are not expected to change their long-term behavior or habitat 

use in response to active underwater acoustic surveying. Consequently, any increased foraging effort, 

competition, or energy expenditure resulting from displacement of prey species is not expected to harm 

diving birds or surface feeding birds. 

Birds likely cannot hear the majority of active acoustic underwater sound sources; thus, any resulting

impacts would be limited to diving birds within meters of the source and would persist only for the 

duration of the activity. Birds and their prey are expected to return to project areas after the completion 

of NOS activities and are not expected to experience any long-term changes in habitat availability, habitat 

use, or energy expenditure. Any resulting impacts from active acoustic underwater sources under 

Alternative A to birds and bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, designated critical habitat, and species 

protected by the MBTA, would continue to be potentially adverse, but negligible and therefore 

insignificant. 

3.10.2.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound

Vessel and equipment sound (hereafter vessel sound) make up the majority of the ambient ocean auditory 

environment and are becoming more prominent with increasing human marine activity. Underwater 

vessel sound is a combination of tonal sound (sounds with discrete frequencies) and broadband sound 

(sounds with a combination of many frequencies) (Richardson et al., 1995) and typically ranges in 

frequency from 0.01 to 10 kHz. Underwater vessel sound is generated predominantly through the 

propeller operation – including cavitation, singing, and propulsion – of crewed vessels and autonomous 

vehicles. The intensity of this sound is dependent on the size and speed of the vessel in question, and 

sound levels attenuate quickly underwater with increasing distance from their source. Birds have a 

documented hearing range of around 100 Hz to 10 kHz in air (Dooling and Popper, 2000), but it is unclear 

whether this range is comparable underwater. The limited data available suggest that the range of bird 

hearing may shift to lower frequencies in water (Dooling and Therrien, 2012), which may allow birds to 

hear low and mid-frequency vessel and equipment sound. As such, sounds emitted by vessels and 

equipment used by NOS could potentially contribute to hearing threshold shifts and acoustic masking in 

exposed birds, but this is unlikely given that diving birds have protective structural hearing adaptations, 

and there is no evidence of ecological use of underwater sound by birds. Furthermore, only diving birds, 

including the ESA-listed species described in Section 3.10.2.2.1, within several meters of underwater 

acoustic sources would be temporarily exposed to active acoustic sources. Given the attenuation of vessel 

sound towards the surface, it is likely that only diving birds in the immediate vicinity of the vessel would 

be displaced by vessel sound as long as the vessel remains in the area. This temporary disturbance is not 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

422

likely to cause any long-term behavioral changes or displacement of affected individuals. Non-diving birds 

would not be affected by vessel and equipment sound at all. 

Vessel sound would affect bird habitat, including designated critical habitat, primarily through the 

displacement of finfish prey. As with active underwater acoustic sources, vessel sound could elicit 

pathological and behavioral effects on fish and likely would disturb or displace them from project areas 

during vessel operation (see Section 3.7 Fish). Fish are expected to return to project areas immediately 

following vessel activity, and any increased foraging effort, competition, or energy expenditure resulting 

from the displacement of prey species is not expected to considerably affect diving or surface feeding 

birds. 

Vessel sound would displace birds, including ESA-listed species, and their prey within the immediate 

vicinity of vessels used by NOS and would not cause any mortality or direct injury. Birds and their prey are 

expected to return to project areas after the completion of NOS activities and are not expected to 

experience any long-term changes in habitat availability, habitat use, or energy expenditure. Sound is a 

common byproduct of oceanic vessel activity, and the impacts created by sound from vessels used by NOS 

would be indistinguishable from those produced by all other vessels. As such, the impacts to birds and 

bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, designated critical habitat, and species protected by the MBTA,

from vessel and equipment sound generated during NOS activities under Alternative A would continue to 

be adverse, negligible, and therefore insignificant. 

3.10.2.2.3 Aircraft Sound

NOS projects would use low-flying aircraft, typically helicopters, to access some remote GPS reference 

stations and tide gauges in Alaska; the resulting aircraft sound could adversely affect birds, including ESAlisted species, in the project area. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters generate sound typically below 500 

Hz (0.5 kHz) from their engines, airframe, and propellers (Richardson et al., 1995). Birds have a 

documented hearing range of around 100 Hz to 10 kHz in air (Dooling and Popper, 2000) and would be 

able to perceive the majority of sound generated by aircraft. Aircraft sound can cause temporary 

disturbance and displacement of birds up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away from an aircraft (Efroymson et al., 2000). 

Repeated, more intensive disturbance around sensitive coastal nesting areas, could lead to nest site 

abandonment and egg or nestling mortality via temperature stress, inadequate feeding of nestlings by 

parents, or predation. These impacts would also be magnified if coastal nesting ESA-listed bird species, 

including all species described in Sections 3.10.1.3.1 and 3.10.1.3.2, were exposed to repeated aircraftinduced stress. However, aircraft are not frequently used during NOS activities, and the resulting sound

would likely only temporarily displace affected individuals in the Alaska region in a project area. Any 

disturbance from aircraft sound is unlikely to cause any long-term bird behavioral changes or 

displacement and would only continue to temporarily disturb existing bird habitat, including designated 

critical habitat. 

Low-flying aircraft are only used very infrequently by NOS and their resulting sound would only displace 

birds, including ESA-listed species, and their prey within the immediate vicinity of aircraft and would not 

cause any mortality or direct injury. Birds and their prey are expected to return to project areas after the 

completion of NOS aircraft activities and are not expected to experience any long-term changes in habitat 

availability, habitat use, or energy expenditure. Sound is also a common byproduct of aircraft activity and 

the impacts created by NOS aircraft sound would be indistinguishable from those produced by all other 

aircraft. As such, the impacts to birds and bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, designated critical 

habitat, and species protected by the MBTA, from aircraft sound generated during NOS activities under 

Alternative A would continue to be adverse, negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

423

3.10.2.2.4 Vessel Movement and Presence

Although many NOS projects involve vessel operations and activity, they represent only a very small 

proportion of the total vessel traffic within the action area (Section 2.4.1). As such, the resulting impacts 

of vessel operations on birds would only marginally contribute to the overall impact of vessel presence 

and movement within a given area as compared to that from all other vessels in the EEZ. Nevertheless, 

vessel presence and movement as a result of NOS projects could cause bird–vessel interactions including 

visual disturbance, vessel strikes, underwater turbulence from vessel wakes, and reduction or 

displacement of avian prey.

Much like vessel sound, vessel presence and movement as a result of NOS activities could potentially 

disrupt normal bird behavior and displace individuals from project areas through visual disturbance. The 

visual perception of vessels used by NOS would likely induce evasive maneuvers such as changes in flying 

direction or speed in nearby birds. As a result, some birds would likely be temporarily displaced from 

project areas while vessels are present. These behavioral changes and displacements would last only for 

the duration of vessel activity within a given area and would not induce any long-term or permanent 

changes in bird habitat use, prey availability, or competition. As such, increased evasive behavior and 

additional energy expenditure as a result of vessel presence and movement are not expected to harm

individual birds or affect bird population numbers and demographic structure. 

Vessel presence and movement during NOS projects could impact birds by direct collision, resulting in 

injury or death of the affected individual. Birds’ responses to vessel presence and movement vary widely 

by species, physiological and reproductive status of the individual, distance from the vessel, and the type, 

intensity, and duration of the disturbance. While it is important to note that no component of the 

Proposed Action involves any intentional attraction of birds, a number of bird families (e.g., Procellariidae, 

Pelicanoididae, Laridae, and Alcidae), including all ESA-listed seabirds described in Section 3.10.1.3.1, are 

attracted to offshore vessels due to light attraction (Wiese et al., 2001) or as a foraging strategy to collect 

prey brought to the surface by propeller wakes (Hyrenbach, 2002). Accidental collisions occasionally 

occur, particularly at night, with alcids and petrels being the most frequently affected species (Black, 

2005). Additionally, an increase in recent vessel strikes in 2020 and 2021 of Steller’s and spectacled eiders, 

both of which are ESA-listed as threatened, have occurred in the Bering Strait and in the Aleutian Islands 

in Alaska (USFWS, 2021c). Taking into account the total number of eiders that have been injured or killed 

by vessel strikes in Alaska in recent years, NOS would expect that any interactions between vessels used 

by NOS and eiders would be appreciably lower than it has been in the past. Vessels used by NOS typically 

travel at speeds less than 10 knots during project operations, allowing birds to recognize and avoid vessels. 

Vessels used by NOS that operate at night, although uncommon, would use the appropriate lighting to 

comply with navigation rules and best safety practices, limiting the exposure of birds to onboard lighting. 

All project areas would be continually monitored for protected species by posted crewmembers during 

vessel operations, further reducing the risk of collision with birds. Given their low likelihood of occurrence, 

vessel collisions with birds are not expected to affect overall bird populations in terms of its demographic 

structure or abundance. 

Activity from ships and boats being placed in and taken out of the water and traveling at sea or in close 

proximity to shore could also cause temporary disturbance and changes in behavior of some species of 

nearby birds (Turnpenny and Nedwell, 1994). The level of disturbance is contingent upon the habituation 

of the affected birds to human activity; sound and activity-based disturbance would be less pronounced 

at and near existing marinas, boat docks, heavily trafficked shipping lanes, and popular boating or 

recreation areas than at isolated island breeding colonies in the Pacific Ocean. Disturbances would be 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

424

limited to the immediate vicinity of the activity and would not continue to persist after the conclusion of 

the activity. If repeated, intensive disturbance could eventually lead to nest site abandonment and egg or 

nestling mortality via temperature stress, inadequate feeding of nestlings by parents, or predation. 

Frequent, low-level vessel sound could also result in chronic stress responses that harm birds, especially 

during sensitive life stages such as molting. These impacts would be magnified if coastal nesting ESA-listed 

bird species, including all species described in Sections 3.10.1.3.1 and 3.10.1.3.2, were exposed to 

repeated vessel-induced stress. However, vessels used by NOS would operate transiently and only remain 

within a given area for the duration of activities before moving to new areas. As such, vessels used for 

NOS projects would not continue to repeatedly disturb birds or contribute to the creation of chronic stress 

responses. 

Vessel presence and movement could affect bird habitat, including designated critical habitat, through 

the displacement and reduction of prey. As with active underwater acoustic sources, vessel sound could 

elicit pathological and behavioral effects on prey species (e.g., fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates) and 

would likely displace them from project areas during vessel operation. Prey are expected to return to 

project areas immediately following vessel activity, and any increased foraging effort, competition, or 

energy expenditure resulting from displacement of prey species is not expected to harm individual birds 

or the bird population. Prey species could also be exposed to waste and debris generated by NOS projects 

and serve as an additional source of waste ingestion for birds, particularly of bioaccumulated 

(concentrated in tissue through repeated exposure and ingestion) waste materials. Assuming proper 

waste disposal regulations are implemented, prey species would only continue to very rarely be exposed 

to trash and debris from NOS projects, and prey population numbers or habitat would not substantially 

change. As such, diving and surface-feeding birds would not be affected by increased foraging effort, 

competition, or energy expenditure resulting from displacement and reduction of prey populations by 

vessel presence and movement. 

Any injury or death to ESA-listed birds would constitute a moderate or greater impact, depending on the 

species, given the protection status afforded to them by the ESA, NMFS, and USFWS. These impacts are 

particularly relevant to Steller’s eiders, spectacled eiders, marbled murrelets, short-tailed albatross, bandrumped storm-petrel, Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, California least tern, and roseate terns due 

to the attraction of these species to vessels. Night operations are especially high risk to these species due 

to their inability to recognize and avoid vessels in low light conditions. However, the duration of NOS 

projects would be relatively short, on the order of hours, days, or weeks, although a small number of 

projects may last several months spread across multiple years (See Section 2.3), and there is only a very 

low likelihood of vessel strike occurrence. Vessels used by NOS operating at night would use the 

appropriate lighting necessary to comply with safety and navigation rules and best safety practices.

Vessels used by NOS would also comprise only a negligible portion of overall vessel traffic, and any impacts 

produced from their movement would be indistinguishable from those produced by all other vessel traffic. 

Any displacement of birds and their prey by vessel presence or wakes would be limited to the immediate 

project vicinity. As such, any resulting impacts to individual birds or to overall bird populations, bird prey, 

and their respective habitat availability would be well within the natural range of variability. Overall, the 

effects of vessel presence and movement under Alternative A on birds and their habitat, including ESAlisted species, designated critical habitat, and species protected by the MBTA, would continue to be

adverse, negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant. 

3.10.2.2.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, Chemicals or Waste

Accidental oil, fuel, and chemical discharges as a result of NOS projects could affect birds through various 

pathways including direct contact, inhalation of the oil, fuel, or volatile components, and ingestion directly 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

425

or indirectly through the consumption of fouled prey species. Although large spills of volatile materials 

would not result from NOS activities, small accidental or routine discharges may occur during normal 

vessel operations. Globally, small discharges from all oceangoing vessels account for at least twice the 

volume of oil released into marine environments globally than that from large accidental spills due to their 

higher frequency of occurrence (GESAMP, 2007). Spilled fuel is less dense than water and floats to the 

surface of the water column where seabirds and shorebirds are susceptible to exposure. The location and 

size of the spill would determine the magnitude and duration of the impact to bird species in the area. 

Although the majority of spills typically dissipate in 24 hours, any direct fuel exposure can cause tissue 

and organ damage in birds in addition to interfering with essential behaviors such as prey detection, 

predator avoidance, and navigation along migratory routes. Large spills would contaminate areas beyond 

the immediate project area and increase the likelihood of bird exposure to volatile chemicals and resulting 

injury or mortality.

All crewed vessels produce some waste through normal operations, and vessels used by NOS could 

accidentally lose or discard debris, a major form of marine pollution (Laist, 1997). Vessels used by NOS

would generate some waste in the form of metal, wood, glass, paper, and plastic, primarily through galley 

and food service operations on larger vessels. Birds commonly mistake improperly discharged marine 

waste for forage items and the continued ingestion of waste over time can substantially degrade avian 

health (Pierce et al., 2004). However, vessels used by NOS would comply with all USCG and EPA waste 

disposal regulations, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed, which prohibit the illegal 

discharge of waste, require the development and implementation of onboard waste management plans, 

require marine debris education for crew members, and require the use of marine sanitation devices to 

treat and discharge sewage (33 U.S.C. § 1905-1915, 33 U.S.C. § 1952-1953, 33 C.F.R. § 159.7). Adherence 

to these regulations should prevent discharged waste from vessels used by NOS from harming birds. 

Furthermore, the vast majority of vessels used by NOS would be small and would not generate substantial 

amounts of waste, especially because they would not have food service or galley operations.

Accidental discharge of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste could affect bird habitat, including designated critical 

habitat, through the disruption of prey sources and nest sites. In the event of a discharge, birds’ vertebrate 

(finfish) and invertebrate (e.g., insects, larvae, polychaete worms, amphipod crustaceans) prey could

become exposed and bioaccumulate spilled substances. These prey species would then serve as an 

additional source of exposure and ingestion of volatile chemicals for foraging birds. Breeding and nesting 

habitat, including that of ground-nesting ESA-listed piping plovers, roseate terns, red knots, western 

snowy plovers, California least terns, and Hawaiian stilts in all regions of the EEZ except the Alaska region, 

along coastlines adjacent to large spills could also be degraded as spilled substances are washed onshore, 

which could potentially cause birds to abandon important nesting and breeding areas. 

Such accidents may be caused by equipment malfunction, human error, or natural phenomena and are 

not expected during the course of NOS operations. In the unlikely event of an accidental spill, there would 

be very low likelihood for contaminants to make contact with the water because vessel operations 

personnel are required to respond immediately using established spill response procedures. For example, 

on NOAA fleet vessels, in the event of an oil, hazardous substance, or marine pollutant spill, the 

Commanding Officer takes appropriate action to minimize the effects of the spill. OMAO Procedure 0701-

06 VRP/SOPEP provides policy and guidance to all NOAA vessels regarding oil pollution emergency 

planning and response, in accordance with MARPOL 73/78, Annex I. The plan contains all the information 

and instruction required for responding to shipboard oil spills, such as general spill mitigation and 

response, shipboard spill mitigation and response, reporting requirements, completing Corrective Action 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

426

Assessments, trainings, drills, and exercises. This plan has been approved by the USCG, and complies with 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Federal Water Pollution Act of 1973.

Although the likelihood of spill occurrence is low with proper adherence to existing regulations, coastal 

ground-nesting ESA-listed species are particularly susceptible to oiling within nesting habitat near high 

water lines. As such, adverse impacts to any ESA-listed species would be considered moderate or greater

due to the vulnerable status of these birds. However, given the low likelihood of occurrence and shortterm duration of most fuel spills, adverse impacts to birds, including ESA-listed species, designated critical 

habitat, and species protected by the MBTA, from accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, or chemicals 

under Alternative A would continue to be adverse, minor to moderate depending on the spill size and 

location, and insignificant. 

3.10.2.2.6 Underwater Activities

As with many human activities on or in the water, the vast majority of NOS projects would cause some 

temporary disturbance to the water column, potentially producing some adverse impacts to diving birds. 

Anchoring, camera and video systems, SCUBA diving, and CTD instruments could all cause temporary 

disturbance and displacement of nearby birds. Sound speed data collection equipment is not likely to 

affect birds as it would be used away from shore on stationary or moving vessels, and any sound or visual 

disturbance would come predominantly from operation of the crewed vessel rather than from use of 

equipment per se. Underwater disturbances would likely elicit avoidance behavior from nearby diving 

birds, but any increased energy expenditure is not expected to substantially affect any individuals or 

population. 

A number of NOS activities involve trailing equipment with lines or wire behind and beneath vessels, which 

poses a risk of entangling nearby birds. From 2001–2005, entanglement rates ranged from 0.2 percent to 

1.2 percent for all seabirds observed by beach monitoring programs in California, Oregon, and Washington 

(NOAA, 2014b). While the vast majority of entanglements involved fishing gear (e.g., monofilament line 

and hooks), approximately 8.3 percent of the entanglements were from non-fishery-related items such as 

plastics and other synthetic materials that birds may gather for making nests (NOAA, 2014b). However, 

NOS equipment is only submerged for periods of time ranging from minutes to hours (see Section 2.4.7) 

and is heavier and more conspicuous than discarded monofilament fishing line. All buoys would be 

attached to the sea floor using the best available mooring systems to reduce entanglement risks. Nearby 

birds would likely be able to recognize and avoid trailing equipment, thus the likelihood of bird-equipment 

interactions would be low. Furthermore, trailed equipment would stay within meters of the towing vessel 

and would only potentially impact birds within its immediate vicinity. Birds within the immediate vicinity 

of vessels would also likely be displaced by the visual disturbance and sound of the vessel itself (Section 

3.10.2.2.4) before they would interact with trailed equipment, further lowering the likelihood of 

entanglement. Given its low likelihood of occurrence, entanglement of birds under Alternative A is not 

expected to affect the abundance or demographic structure of any bird populations. 

Underwater activities would affect bird habitat, including designated critical habitat, predominantly 

through the operation of the crewed vessels that are used to carry associated equipment (see Section 

3.10.2.2.4) and would not be expected to contribute to any long-term changes in habitat occupancy or 

behavior of finfish prey. Some underwater activities including anchoring, bottom sampling, use of drop 

cameras, and mobile ADCPs can also disturb the sea floor, increasing sedimentation and potentially 

displacing marine macroinvertebrate prey. However, underwater activities would only degrade very small 

proportions of bird habitat, and any resulting disturbance or degradation would be temporary and limited 

to the immediate project area. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

427

Underwater activities would likely only displace birds, including ESA-listed species, and bird prey within 

the immediate vicinity of vessels used by NOS or divers and would not cause any mortality or direct injury. 

Birds and their prey are expected to return to project areas after the completion of NOS underwater 

activities and are not expected to experience any long-term changes in habitat availability or use, including 

that of designated habitat, or energy expenditure outside of the natural range of variation. As such, the 

impacts to birds and bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, designated critical habitat, and species 

protected by the MBTA, from underwater activities under Alternative A would continue to be adverse, 

negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant. 

3.10.2.2.7 Onshore Activities

NOS onshore projects, such as the installation, maintenance, and removal of shore-based GPS reference 

stations and tide gauges, could potentially disturb birds from sensitive nesting, roosting, and breeding 

areas. Sound and activity from both the access of remote locations and on-shore installation of tide gauges 

and GPS reference stations could cause temporary disturbance and behavioral changes in nearby birds. 

Crews may also visit monitoring sites periodically for maintenance, during which sound and activity would

disturb nearby birds temporarily. All disturbances would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project 

area and would not persist beyond the conclusion of activity in the area. These responses would be well 

within the normal range of bird behavior; onshore activities are not expected to contribute to any longterm changes in habitat occupancy, avoidance behavior, or energy expenditure in birds. 

Onshore activities could degrade and reduce sensitive breeding, roosting, and nesting habitat, including 

critical habitat. The installation of semi-permanent monitoring equipment such as GPS reference systems 

and tide gauges could potentially reduce the quantity and quality of shoreline and coastal bird habitat. 

The majority of birds affected by NOS projects and activities, including all ESA-listed species described in 

Sections 3.10.1.3.1 and 3.10.1.3.2, breed, nest, and roost along the coast. These behaviors are timesensitive in nature and disturbances within associated areas would carry a higher potential cost to both 

individual birds and the overall bird population. During onshore activities, vegetation in and adjacent to 

the project area could be trampled by foot traffic, damaged, or cleared, but would likely recover postinstallation. However, NOS would take all necessary precautions to avoid wounding birds or disturbing 

nests during onshore activities. Onshore installations would only occupy very small proportions of 

available habitat, and no long-term changes in bird habitat availability, quality, or use are expected as a 

result of onshore activities. 

Onshore activity would likely only displace birds and prey within the immediate vicinity of the project area 

and would not cause any mortality or direct injury. Onshore installations would only occupy very small 

portions of available habitat and birds and their prey are expected to return to project areas after the 

completion of NOS onshore activities. As such, birds are not expected to experience any long-term 

changes in habitat availability, habitat use, or energy expenditure outside of the natural range of variation.

Given the relatively low level of onshore activity anticipated, along with the short duration of exposure to 

sound and visual disturbance, the impacts to birds and bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, 

designated critical habitat, and species protected by the MBTA, from NOS onshore activities under 

Alternative A would continue to be adverse, negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant.

3.10.2.2.8 Air Emissions from Vessel Operations

Air emissions from NOS activities would adversely impact birds through direct inhalation pathways. It is 

important to note that vessels used by NOS make up only a small proportion of the total amount of vessel 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

428

operation (Section 2.4.1) and would only marginally contribute to the overall level of emissions within the 

action area. However, any emissions of anthropogenic GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, and ozone (O3) by NOS would 

primarily contribute to ongoing changes in atmospheric and terrestrial conditions. Smokestack and twostroke outboard motor emissions from vessels used by NOS would release pollutants into the atmosphere 

of the project area and immediately surrounding areas. Birds are particularly sensitive to air quality due 

to their high breathing rate and long periods of time spent in open air (Sanderfoot and Holloway, 2017). 

Prolonged exposure to high amounts of pollutants can result in respiratory stress, physiological changes, 

and reduced immunocompetency (ability to respond to illness) in birds (Sanderfoot and Holloway, 2017). 

ESA-listed short-tailed albatrosses, band-rumped storm petrels, and Hawaiian petrels are particularly 

susceptible to air pollution because they spend large proportions of their time travelling between foraging 

and nesting habitat. However, NOS activities are not expected to substantially increase air emissions in 

the oceans and the resulting bird exposure is not expected to substantially affect individual birds or the 

overall population of any species. 

Air emissions could also potentially degrade seabird habitat, including designated critical habitat, by 

contributing to the acidification of the ocean. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels increase dissolved CO2 and 

bicarbonate ions in seawater, which subsequently leads to a decrease in seawater pH and carbonate ions. 

In general, a decrease in pH corresponds to a simultaneous increase in acidity, termed “ocean 

acidification.” Changes in seawater carbon chemistry may adversely affect marine biota through a variety 

of biochemical, physiological, and physical processes and interactions. Although ocean acidification 

resulting from air emissions is within the range of bird tolerance and is not expected to cause any direct 

harm to individuals and the population, ocean acidification could potentially reduce the availability of 

macroinvertebrate prey species that are particularly sensitive to pH levels during their larval life stages. 

However, as stated previously, NOS activities are not expected to substantially increase air emissions in 

the oceans and any increased bird competition, foraging effort, or energy expenditure as a result of 

reduced prey availability from ocean acidification is not expected to substantially affect individuals or the 

overall population of any bird species.

Air emissions could potentially cause some direct injury to birds, including ESA-listed species. Injury or 

mortality resulting from air emissions to any ESA-listed species could be considered a large impact due to 

the vulnerable status of these birds. However, the amount of emissions from vessels used by NOS would 

be negligible when compared to emissions from all other vessel activity in the oceans. The minimal direct 

impact on birds species under Alternative A would be confined to the immediate project area for only the 

duration of activity. Macroinvertebrate prey populations could also potentially be affected by ocean 

acidification, but any changes in prey population size would be well within the natural range of variability. 

As such, birds are not expected to experience any long-term changes in habitat availability, habitat use, 

or energy expenditure from air emissions outside of the range of natural variation. Thus, impacts to birds 

and bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, designated critical habitat, and species protected by the 

MBTA, from NOS air emissions under Alternative A would continue to be adverse, negligible to minor due 

to air emissions dispersing beyond the immediate project area, and therefore insignificant.

3.10.2.2.9 Conclusion

Although the effects of impact causing factors on birds and their associated habitat range from negligible 

to moderate, moderate impacts are only expected in the extremely unlikely occurrence of a large spill of 

oil, fuel, or chemicals. Since all other impacts range from negligible to minor, the overall impact of 

Alternative A on birds, including ESA-listed species, designated critical habitat, and species protected by 

the MBTA, would continue to be adverse and minor; therefore, impacts of Alternative A would be 

insignificant. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

429

3.10.2.3 Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and Marine Data 

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

Projects under Alternative B would take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes as under 

Alternative A; however, Alternative B would include more projects, activities, and nautical miles traveled 

than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, NOS survey effort would cover a total of 2,912,753 nm (5,394,419 

km) across all five regions over the five-year period. Overall, survey effort would cover an additional 

264,796 nm (490,402 km) under Alternative B (see Table 3.4-5), an approximately 10 percent increase 

over Alternative A (2,647,958 nm [4,904,017 km] total) across all regions over the five-year period. Thus, 

the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed each year would be in the Southeast Region (with 

approximately 47 percent of the survey effort); the level of effort in the other four regions would be at 

similar levels (approximately 10 percent of the survey effort in each region), and perhaps slightly greater 

in the Alaska Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall (approximately 18

percent). The level of effort in the Great Lakes would remain much lower as compared to an annual total 

marine survey effort. In general, it is expected that level of effort and overall impacts trend together (i.e., 

greater impacts where the survey effort is higher), but there are other factors, such as location of surveys, 

sound production and hearing frequency of birds, and population density of birds, that add nuance to this 

trend.

Under Alternative B crewed vessel operations would cover 577,000 nm (1,070,000 km), as compared to 

518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel operations are among the most disruptive NOS 

activities to bird populations and could contribute to impacts on bird and bird habitat through visual 

disturbance, direct collision, vessel sound, vessel wake and underwater turbulence, trailing equipment 

that could cause entanglement, accidental spills or waste disposal, and air emissions. Although the 

amount of crewed vessel operations would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, the 

additional 59,000 nm (109,000 km) would be distributed across the five regions of the EEZ. While these 

additional operations would result in greater impacts overall, the associated impact-causing factors would 

not be concentrated enough in any given area to substantially increase the magnitude of impact (e.g., 

from negligible to minor). This relationship is consistent for all other impact-causing factors from proposed 

activities, such as onshore disturbance from the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges 

and installation GPS reference stations; and entanglement risk from anchoring, bottom sample collection, 

and trailing video equipment.

Impacts of Alternative B on birds and bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, designated critical habitat, 

and species protected by the MBTA, would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those 

discussed above under Alternative A for each impact causing factor. Overall, impacts on birds and bird 

habitat, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would be adverse, minor and 

therefore insignificant.

3.10.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

Projects under Alternative C would take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes as under 

Alternatives A and B; however, Alternative C would include more projects, activities, and nautical miles 

traveled than Alternative A. Under Alternative C, NOS survey effort would cover a total of 3,177,549 nm 

(5,884,821 km) across all five regions over the five-year period. Overall, NOS survey effort would cover an 

additional 264,796 nm (490,402 km) under Alternative C (see Table 3.4-6), an approximate nine percent 

increase over Alternative B (2,912,753 nm [5,394,419 km] total); and an additional 529,592 nm (980,803

km), an approximate 20 percent increase over Alternative A (2,647,958 nm [4,904,017 km] total) across 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

430

all regions over the five-year period. Thus, the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed each year would 

be in the Southeast Region (with approximately percent of the survey effort); the level of effort in the 

other four regions would be at similar levels (approximately 10 percent of the survey effort in each region), 

and perhaps slightly greater in the Alaska Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher 

overall (approximately 18 percent). The level of effort in the Great Lakes would remain much lower as 

compared to an annual total marine survey effort. In general, it is expected that level of effort and overall 

impacts trend together(i.e., greater impacts where the survey effort is higher), butthere are other factors, 

such as location of surveys, sound production and hearing frequency of birds, and population density of 

birds, that add nuance to this trend.

Under Alternative C, crewed vessel operations would cover 637,000 nm (1,180,000 km), as compared to 

577,000 nm (1,070,000 km) under Alternative B and 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel 

operations are among the most disruptive NOS activities to bird populations and could contribute to 

impacts on bird and bird habitat through visual disturbance, direct collision, vessel sound, vessel wake 

and underwater turbulence, trailing equipment that could cause entanglement, accidental spills or waste 

disposal, and air emissions. Although the amount of crewed vessel operations would be greater under 

Alternative C than under Alternatives A and B, the additional 119,000 nm (220,388 km) as compared to 

Alternative A and the additional 60,000 nm (111,000 km) as compared to Alternative B would be 

distributed across the five regions of the EEZ. While these additional operations would result in greater 

impacts overall, the associated impact-causing factors would not be concentrated enough in any given 

area to substantially increase the magnitude of impact (e.g., from negligible to minor). This relationship is 

consistent for all other proposed activities contributing potential impacts, such as onshore disturbance 

from the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and installation GPS reference stations; 

and entanglement risk from anchoring, bottom sample collection, and trailing video equipment.

Impacts of Alternative C on birds and bird habitat, including ESA-listed species, designated critical habitat, 

and species protected by the MBTA, would be the same or somewhat, but not appreciably, larger than 

those discussed above under Alternative A for each impact causing factor. Overall, impacts on birds and

bird habitat, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would be adverse, minor, and

therefore insignificant.

3.10.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination

Twenty-two species of birds occurring within the action area are listed under the ESA (see Table 3.10-2), 

and federal agencies are required under the ESA to formally determine whether their actions may affect 

listed birds or their designated critical habitat. Effects determinations divide potential effects into three 

categories: No Effect; May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect; and May Affect, and is Likely to 

Adversely Affect. Actions receiving a “No Effect” designation do not impact listed species or their 

designated critical habitat (hereafter listed resources) either positively or negatively. This designation is 

typically used only in situations where no listed resources are present in the action area. Actions receiving 

a “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” designation have only beneficial, insignificant, or 

discountable effects to listed resources. Effects are considered insignificant if they are of low relative 

impact, undetectable, not measurable, or cannot be evaluated. Adverse effects are considered 

discountable if they are extremely unlikely to occur. Actions designated as “May Affect, and is Likely to 

Adversely Affect” will negatively impact any exposed listed resources. 

Although ESA-listed bird species can likely hear the frequencies emitted by active underwater acoustic

sources, bird hearing is adapted for airborne sound. Diving birds could potentially be exposed to active 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

431

underwater acoustic sources but this exposure would be limited to the short time periods in which these 

birds are foraging. Furthermore, underwater sound is not thought to be an important ecological factor for 

bird behavior. Due to the mobile and temporary nature of the projects, the small area of the seas affected 

during the projects relative to the entire EEZ, and the possibility of birds and their prey to temporarily 

move away from sound, the response to sound exposure from active underwater acoustic sources would 

be limited to only a few individuals and, therefore, insignificant (i.e., so small they cannot be meaningfully 

measured, detected, or evaluated).

The proposed amount of vessel presence and movement associated with activities would be very small in 

comparison to all other non-project related vessel presence and movement in the EEZ. Given the 

frequency and duration of vessel operations and the rarity of ESA-listed species, the likelihood of collision 

is very small. Vessels used by NOS that operate at night, although uncommon, adhere to mitigation 

measures including the use of appropriate lighting to comply with navigation rules and best safety 

practices, and all project areas would be continually monitored for protected species by posted crew 

members during vessel operations, thus limiting the exposure of birds to onboard lighting and further 

reducing the likelihood of collisions with ESA-listed species. Disturbances from increased vessel presence 

and movement, including sound, water column disruption, and accidental waste discharge, would be 

temporary to short-term and would likely only temporarily affect ESA-listed birds. Because disturbance 

would occur infrequently in any given area and would only temporarily affect ESA-listed birds, the 

response by ESA-listed birds to vessel presence and movement would be limited to only a few individuals, 

and therefore, insignificant (i.e., so small they cannot be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) 

for most ESA-listed bird species. However, because of historical vessel strike occurrences of the Steller’s 

eider and spectacled eider in Alaska, and although impacts of the Proposed Action would be negligible to 

minor, with moderate impacts only in the very low likelihood of a vessel strike (see Section 3.10.2.2.4), 

under the ESA this adverse potential impact cannot be considered insignificant (i.e., so small they cannot 

be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated), or discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

The likelihood for an accidental spill is expected to be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur), and 

exposure of ESA-listed bird species and critical habitats to oil, fuel, and other contaminants is not 

expected. These accidents may be caused by equipment malfunction, human error, or natural phenomena 

and are not expected during the course of NOS operations. In the unlikely event of an accidental spill, 

there would be a very low likelihood for contaminants to make contact with the water because vessel 

operations personnel are required to respond immediately using established spill response procedures. 

Therefore, effects from chemical contamination on ESA-listed species are discountable (i.e., extremely 

unlikely to occur).

Onshore and above-water activities, such as the installation of onshore equipment and use of low-flying 

aircraft, could potentially disturb and displace nearby ESA-listed species for the duration of activity. No 

permanent changes in behavioral or habitat use are expected to result from these disturbances. Given 

the temporary nature of the disturbance and small proportion of total bird habitat affected, the response 

of ESA-listed birds to onshore activities would be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

Although underwater disturbance by crewed vessels, ROVs, ADCPs, and SCUBA divers could temporarily 

disturb and displace nearby diving birds, their effects would be temporary and minimal limited to only a 

few individuals; thus, the response by ESA-listed birds would be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to 

occur).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

432

NOS concludes that the Proposed Action “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” 20 of the ESAlisted bird species occurring in the action area and “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” two ESA-listed 

bird species occurring in the action area (Table 3.10-4).

Since activities may occur in some areas within or adjacent to designated critical habitats, there is the 

potential for impacts on critical habitat that support ESA-listed bird species. Critical habitat may be 

minimally disturbed but would remain functional to maintain viability of the species dependent on it. The 

Proposed Action “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the designated critical habitat occurring 

in the action area (Table 3.10-4).

Table 3.10-4. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Seabirds,

Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl and Critical Habitat

Common Name Scientific Name Species Determination

Critical Habitat 

Determination

Seabirds

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Band-rumped stormpetrelOceanodroma castro May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A* (no critical habitat 

designated)

Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Hawaiian petrel Pterodroma 

sandwichensis

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Newell's shearwater Puffinus auricularis 

newelli

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

California least tern Sternula antillarum 

browni

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Shorebirds and Coastal Birds

Red knot Calidris canutus rufa May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Western snowy 

plover

Charadrius nivosus May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Hawaiian coot Fulica americana alai May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Whooping crane Grus americana May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

433

Common Name Scientific Name Species Determination

Critical Habitat 

Determination

Hawaiian stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

knudseni

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Wood stork Mycteria americana May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Light-footed clapper 

rail

Rallus longirostris 

levipes

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

California clapper rail Rallus longirostris 

obsoletus

May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Waterfowl

Laysan duck Anas laysanensis May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Hawaiian duck Anas wyvilliana May Affect, but Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

*N/A = Not applicable